AGENDA - City of Fremantle PC Ag… · (ad et01/16) 62 pc1607-5 schedule of applications determined under delegated authority 79 pc1607-6 local planning policy lpp 2.14 - advertisement

l

AGENDA

Planning Committee

Wednesday, 6 July 2016, 6.00pm

CITY OF FREMANTLE

NOTICE OF A PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING Elected Members A Planning Committee meeting of the City of Fremantle will be held on Wednesday, 6

July 2016 in the Council Chamber, Town Hall Centre, 8 William Street, Fremantle

(access via stairs, next to the playground in Kings Square) commencing at 6.00 pm.

Paul Trotman DIRECTOR STRATEGIC PLANNING & PROJECTS 30 June 2016

PLANNING COMMITTEE

AGENDA

DECLARATION OF OPENING / ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS NYOONGAR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATEMENT "We acknowledge this land that we meet on today is part of the traditional lands of the Nyoongar people and that we respect their spiritual relationship with their country. We also acknowledge the Nyoongar people as the custodians of the greater Fremantle/Walyalup area and that their cultural and heritage beliefs are still important to the living Nyoongar people today." ATTENDANCE / APOLOGIES / LEAVE OF ABSENCE RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE PUBLIC QUESTION TIME DEPUTATIONS / PRESENTATIONS DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST BY MEMBERS LATE ITEMS NOTED CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES That the minutes of the Planning Committee dated 1 June 2016 be confirmed as a true and accurate record. TABLED DOCUMENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM NO SUBJECT PAGE

DEFERRED ITEMS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION) 1

PC1607-1 DEFERRED ITEM LONGFORD ROAD, NO. 7 (LOT 2), BEACONSFIELD - TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE - (NB DA0103/16 1

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION) 9

PC1607-2 GOLD STREET, NO. 19 (LOT 55), SOUTH FREMANTLE - TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE - (BP DA0145/16) 9

PC1607-3 CHESTER STREET, NO. 29B (LOT 901), SOUTH FREMANTLE - PARTIAL CHANGE OF USE TO BED AND BREAKFAST FOR EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE - (NB DA0192/16) 19

PC1607-4 SOUTH TERRACE, NO. 65 (LOT 12), FREMANTLE - EXTENSION TO THE TERM OF PLANNING APPROVAL FOR DA0108/10 (THREE STOREY MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT (MEDICAL CENTRE, HOSPITAL, 4 MULTIPLE DWELLINGS) - (AD ET01/16) 24

PC1607-5 SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY 31

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COUNCIL DECISION) 32

PC1607-6 LOCAL PLANNING POLICY LPP 2.14 - ADVERTISEMENT POLICY - FINAL ADOPTION 32

PC1607-7 DRAFT LOCAL STRUCTURE AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN - FORMER MATILDA BAY BREWERY SITE - RECOMMENDATION FOR FINAL ADOPTION 48

PC1607-8 DRAFT LOCAL PLANNING POLICY LPP 2.20 - DISCRETION TO VARY LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME SITE OR DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR HERITAGE PURPOSES 73

CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS 79

AGENDA ATTACHMENTS 1

PC1607-1 DEFERRED ITEM LONGFORD ROAD, NO. 7 (LOT 2), BEACONSFIELD - TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE - (NB DA0103/16 3

PC1607-2 GOLD STREET, NO. 19 (LOT 55), SOUTH FREMANTLE - TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE - (BP DA0145/16) 30

PC1607-3 CHESTER STREET, NO. 29B (LOT 901), SOUTH FREMANTLE - PARTIAL CHANGE OF USE TO BED AND BREAKFAST FOR EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE - (NB DA0192/16) 48

PC1607-4 SOUTH TERRACE, NO. 65 (LOT 12), FREMANTLE - EXTENSION TO THE TERM OF PLANNING APPROVAL FOR DA0108/10 (THREE STOREY MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT (MEDICAL CENTRE, HOSPITAL, 4 MULTIPLE DWELLINGS) - (AD ET01/16) 62

PC1607-5 SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY 79

PC1607-6 LOCAL PLANNING POLICY LPP 2.14 - ADVERTISEMENT POLICY - FINAL ADOPTION 84

PC1607-7 DRAFT LOCAL STRUCTURE AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN - FORMER MATILDA BAY BREWERY SITE - RECOMMENDATION FOR FINAL ADOPTION 120

PC1607-8 DRAFT LOCAL PLANNING POLICY LPP 2.20 - DISCRETION TO VARY LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME SITE OR DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR HERITAGE PURPOSES 215

Agenda - Planning Committee 6 July 2016

Page 1

DEFERRED ITEMS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION)

The following items are subject to clause 1.1 and 2.1 of the City of Fremantle Delegated Authority Register

PC1607-1 DEFERRED ITEM LONGFORD ROAD, NO. 7 (LOT 2), BEACONSFIELD - TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE - (NB DA0103/16

ECM Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 6 July 2016 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Committee Previous Item Number/s: PC1606-3 Attachments: Attachment 1: Amended Development Plans

Attachment 2: Applicant’s Justification Attachment 3: PC Minutes – 6 June 2016 Attachment 4: Withdrawal of Neighbour Comments

Date Received: 4 March 2016; 14 June 2016 (amended plans)

Owner Name: D. Rice Submitted by: D. Rice Scheme: Residential – R35 Heritage Listing: Archaeological Site Existing Landuse: Vacant lot Use Class: Single House Use Permissibility: ‘P’


Page 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application is presented before the Planning Committee (PC) as the applicant has provided amended plans in order to address Council’s reason for deferral at the previous PC held 1 June 2016. PC resolved to:

defer the item to the next appropriate Planning Committee meeting to allow for the applicant to submit amended plans to reduce the overshadowing on the adjoining southern neighbour.

Since this PC meeting, amended plans have been submitted which are considered to address the reasons for the deferral as detailed above. Additionally, the adjoining southern neighbours have withdrawn their objections after reviewing the amended plans. Accordingly, the application is recommended for conditional approval. BACKGROUND

At its meeting held 6 July 2016, the PC resolved to:

defer the item to the next appropriate Planning Committee meeting to allow for the applicant to submit amended plans to reduce the overshadowing on the adjoining southern neighbour.

Further background information is included in the report previously considered by PC on 2 March 2016, which is included in Attachment 3. On 14 June 2016 the City received amended plans from the applicant (Attachment 1). DETAIL

The reason for deferral at the PC meeting of 6 July 2016 was to allow the applicant to resolve the overshadowing concerns raised by the adjoining neighbours. The southern boundary walls were also a concern, though not specifically mentioned in the reason for deferral, as they contributed to the overshadowing. In order to address overshadowing the following amendments were made:

Increased the Alfresco setback from 1m to 1.475m

Altered the upper floor to reduce it in area (modified the void and studio space) and increased a portion of the setback from 1.2m to 2.95m

Reduced the overall height of the upper floor by 300mm

Reduced the height of the parapet walls on the boundary by 113mm These amendments have the effect of bringing the dwelling into compliance with the R-Codes in terms of overshadowing. The applicant has provided a full explanation of amendments, which is included as Attachment 2. Please refer to the previous PC report from the meeting held 6 June 2016 (PC1606-3) for further detail of the original proposal, which is contained as ‘Attachment 3’ of this report.


Page 3

STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

Please refer to the previous PC report from the meeting held 6 June 2016 (PC1606-3) for further detail, which is contained as ‘Attachment 3’ of this report. Policy discretions and assessment against the R Codes design principles sought by this application are discussed in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report. CONSULTATION

Community

The amended plans were not required to be readvertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4. The City has informally offered the adjoining southern neighbour, who previously had concerns with the proposal, an opportunity to view the amended plans and provide comment between 15 - 20 June 2016. The adjoining neighbours viewed the plans and stated that they do not have any further concerns and are satisfied with the amendments that have been made (Attachment 4). PLANNING COMMENT

Lot Boundary Setbacks Although the boundary walls were reduced in height there still exists the same lot boundary setback variation. For ease of reference the lot boundary assessment from the previous PC report is included below:- The relevant section of Local Planning Policy 2.4: Boundary Walls in Residential Development allows walls to be built up to a boundary in accordance with the following:

Where the wall is proposed on a lot, not including a battleaxe lot, with a frontage (as defined by the Residential Design Codes) of less than 10 metres and complies with the following: ii)In areas coded R30 and higher, walls not higher than 3.5m with an average of 3m

for two-thirds the length of the balance of the lot boundary behind the front setback, to one side boundary only.

The proposal includes single storey boundary walls on both the north and south boundaries. Separately, the total length of wall on each boundary complies with LPP 2.4, however, the policy limits boundary walls to one side only. A generous assessment would class the longer southern walls as compliant with the variation occurring on the northern side as follows:-

Element Wall Policy Requirements

Provided Design Principle

assessment

LPP 2.4 Garage (north)

1m Nil 1m

LPP 2.4 South walls Nil Nil N/A – Complies


Page 4

Walls that do not meet the requirements above must meet the design principles of the R-Codes, which state:- ‘P3.2 Buildings built up to boundaries (other than the street boundary) where this:

Makes more effective use of space for enhanced privacy for the occupant/s or outdoor living areas;

Does not compromise the design principle contained in clause 5.1.3 P3.1;

Does not have any adverse impact on the amenity of the adjoining property;

Ensures direct sun to major openings to habitable rooms and outdoor living areas for adjoining properties is not restricted; and

Positively contributes to the prevailing development context and streetscape.’ In considering a proposed boundary wall against the design principle of the R-Codes, Council will be satisfied that the boundary wall meets the criteria of the third point above where, after considering the proposal against the criteria of points 2, 4 and 5, Council considers that the proposed boundary wall presents no significant adverse impact on the amenity of the adjoining property. In relation to point 2 above, clause 5.1.3 P3.1 of the R-Codes states:- 'P3.1 Buildings set back from lot boundaries so as to:

Reduce the impacts of building bulk on adjoining properties;

Provide adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building and open spaces on the site and adjoining properties; and

Minimise the extent of overlooking and resultant loss of privacy on adjoining properties.'

Planning Response (northern boundary wall)

1. Building to the boundaries makes more effective use of space, especially considering the reduction in available lot area due to the truncation of the front boundary.

2. As per cl 5.1.3 P3.1, the garage wall is approximately 2.6 metres high and located on the northern boundary. Therefore, the proposal will not impact winter sun to the northern property and will have minimal impact on building bulk to the adjoining property. The room is non-habitable so there will be no impact on privacy.

3. The proposal will not have any adverse impact on the amenity of the adjoining lot as per points 2, 4 and 5.

4. The proposal is low enough in height and located on the northern boundary so as not to restrict sun to major openings and outdoor living areas of adjoining properties.

5. The proposal is in keeping with the locality, which includes numerous examples of garages with a nil boundary setback to adjoining lots due to the 10 metre frontage of said lots.

The variation to the northern lot boundary setback is therefore supported. A more conservative assessment would state that the northern garage is compliant and the variation occurs on the southern walls, being set back nil metres in lieu of 1.5 metres. The most notable aspect of this interpretation is the impact on building bulk and overshadowing.


Page 5

Impact of Amendments In regards to building bulk, the amended proposal would result in 2.887 metre high boundary walls being built on the southern boundary for a total length of 15.9 metres. These walls would be single storey and approximately 1 metre higher than a traditional dividing fence for a large portion of the lot. The amendments have slightly reduced the impact of building bulk to the adjoining property. Overshadowing is discussed further below. Overshadowing

Element Deemed-to-comply Provided Merit based assessment

R-Codes 35% 35% 0%

The amended plans show that the development complies in terms of overshadowing as per the R-Codes. Of note is that the applicant has included an indicative shading area of a dividing fence, which by itself would cover 26% of the adjoining lot due to the east-west orientation and the narrow frontage of both sites. By reducing the boundary wall height, the overall height and rearranging the upper floor plan, the overshadowing to outdoor living areas and major openings to habitable rooms has been sufficiently reduced. The application is therefore recommended for conditional approval. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS No street trees exist on the lot. The olive tree on the verge must be replaced ‘like for like’ in accordance with requirements for the future crossover application. ALTERNATIVE OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION Should council not be satisfied with the amendments as they relate to setbacks and overshadowing, an alternative recommendation for approval is included below. That the application be REFUSED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the two storey Single house at No. 7 (Lot 2) Longford Road, Beaconsfield, as detailed on plans dated 14 June 2016, for the following reasons:

1. The proposal is inconsistent with the design principles of clause 5.1.3 of the R-Codes due to the negative impact on building bulk and direct sun to the adjoining southern lot.

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the two storey Single house at No. 7 (Lot 2) Longford Road, Beaconsfield, as detailed on plans dated 14 June 2016, subject to the following conditions:

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans, dated 14 June 2016. It does not relate to any other


Page 6

development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.

2. All storm water discharge shall be contained and disposed of on site or otherwise approved by the Chief Executive Officer – City of Fremantle.

3. Prior to occupation, the boundary walls located on the north AND

south shall be of a clean finish in either;

coloured sand render;

face brick;

painted surface; or,

other approved finish

and be thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer - City of Fremantle.

4. Due to the presence of asbestos in soil underlying the capping layer

at the site, prior to the commencement of works, a site specific health and safety plan must be developed to address the risks to the health of any workers undertaking intrusive works below 1.25m in depth, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle on advice from the Department of Environment Regulation.

5. No less than 14 days prior to the commencement of construction,

plans detailing the proposed construction and layout of the gas mitigation systems, in accordance with the ‘Environmental Site Management Plan for Proposed Dwellings at Lot 9002 Longford Road, Beaconsfield WA Version 8 (MDWES, 27 July 2015)’, must be approved by an appropriately qualified and experience civil or structural engineer, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle on advice from the Department of Environment Regulation.

6. Construction of subsurface voids, including but not limited to the

installation of soakwells, is restricted to a maximum depth of 1 metre below the surface. No less than 14 days prior to the commencement of construction, plumbing plans detailing any proposed excavations must be submitted to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle on advice from the Department of Environment Regulation.

7. Buildings constructed on the site are required to comply with the

engineering specifications outlined in the document ‘Environmental Site Management Plan for Proposed Dwellings at Lot 9002 Longford Road, Beaconsfield WA Version 8 (MDWES, 27 July 2015)’, in order to manage and mitigate potential risks associated with landfill gases. Prior to post slab construction, engineered gas mitigation systems, including a passive ventilation system inclusive of a graded layer containing a system of ventilation ducting with direct connection to


Page 7

the external atmosphere and a sealed sub-slab gas membrane system, must be inspected, tested and certified by an appropriately qualified and experienced civil or structural engineer and confirmed to comply with the relevant engineering specifications. Appropriate certification report, prepared by the engineer must be provided to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle, on advice from the Department of Environment Regulation, no more than 14 days after the date on which the inspection and testing was undertaken.

ADVISORY NOTES:

i. With regards to clarity on planning conditions Nos. 4 - 7 the applicant

is advised to liaise with the Department of Environment Regulation (DER) for DER matter MD07618. DER contact details area follows:

Department of Environmental Regulation Phone 1300 762 982 Email – www.der.wa.gov.au

ii. Due to the nature and extent of groundwater contamination identified

to date, the abstraction of groundwater for any purpose other than analytical testing or remediation is not permitted.

iii. The site is to be managed in accordance with ‘Environmental Site

Management Plan for Proposed Dwellings at Lot 9002 Longford Road, Beaconsfield WA Version 8 (MDWES, 27 July 2015)’ and any subsequent amendments to that plan. The Environmental Site Management Plan can be obtained from the City of Fremantle, or downloaded from the Department of Environment Regulations website.

iv. To ensure adequate passive venting of potential ground gasses, DER

recommend that landscaping features comprised of paving, garden or lawn areas are preferable to concrete or bitumen hardstand.

v. The approval of the new / revised vehicle access has been granted based on the plans as submitted by the applicant to the City of Fremantle showing existing infrastructure and trees within the road verge and road. Should it transpire that this existing infrastructure was not accurately depicted on the plan it is the responsibility of the applicant to either;

submit amended plans to the City of Fremantle for consideration, or submit a request to the City for removal or modification of the infrastructure.

vi. This request will be considered independently of any Planning

Approval granted, and this Planning Approval should not be taken as approval for removal or modification of any infrastructure within the road reserve.

http://www.der.wa.gov.au/


Page 8

vii. The City’s Parks and Landscaping Services have advised that Council will support the removal of the olive tree for the proposed new crossover at 7 Longford Road Beaconsfield on the condition that the tree is professionally removed and replanted by a qualified tree transplanting company at the owners expense. New location to be central on the remaining verge in the same alignment as existing olive trees (Location can be confirmed by contacting Council officer in Parks) The tree is to be watered for a 2 year period by the owner. Should the olive tree die in that 2 year period it will be the owners responsibility to replace it “like for like” at their expense.

viii.This approval relates to the subject site and does not authorise the removal or modification of verge infrastructure and/or verge trees within the verge area. Written approval is to be obtained for removal or modification of verge infrastructure and/or verge trees within the verge area from the relevant City of Fremantle department or relevant service authority, before construction commences. Please refer to the City’s Tree Planting and Vehicle Crossings Policies (SG28 and MD0015) for further information.


Page 9

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION)

The following items are subject to clause 1.1 and 2.1 of the City of Fremantle Delegated Authority Register

PC1607-2 GOLD STREET, NO. 19 (LOT 55), SOUTH FREMANTLE - TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE - (BP DA0145/16)

ECM Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 6 July 2016 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Committee Previous Item Number/s: N/A Attachments: 1: Revised Development Plans

2: Site Visit Photos 3. Internal Heritage Comment 4. Internal Heritage Comment on Revised Plans 5. Streetscape montage provided by applicant

Date Received: Amended plans received 16 June 2016) Owner Name: Fomalhaut Nominees Pty Ltd Submitted by: As above Scheme: Residential R30 Heritage Listing: Not listed Existing Landuse: Single storey Single House Use Class: Single House Use Permissibility: ‘P’


Page 10

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The application seeks planning approval for a two storey Single House. The proposal is referred to the Planning Committee (PC) due to submissions that are unable to be addressed through the imposition of relevant planning conditions. The applicant seeks discretionary assessments against the Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4), the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) and relevant Local Planning Policies (LPPs). These discretionary and Design Principle assessments include the following:

Sight lines; Visual privacy (east & west); Boundary walls (east and west); Fencing height (primary street & boundary).

The above discretionary assessments are, on balance, considered to be supportable, subject to appropriate conditions. Accordingly, the application is recommended for approval. BACKGROUND The subject site is located south of South Street, west of Francisco Street, east of South Terrace and north of Silver Street. The site has a land area of approximately 369m² and currently has a single storey Single House. The site is zoned Residential under the provisions of LPS4 and has a density coding of R30. The subject site is not adopted under the City’s Heritage List, although it is located within the South Fremantle Heritage Area. A search of the property file revealed the following relevant planning history for the site:

On 19 August 2015, the City granted planning approval for the demolition of the existing single storey Single House (ref. DA0345/15). This application has not been acted upon to date.

DETAIL

The application seeks planning approval for a two storey Single House and includes the following: Four bedrooms; Three bathrooms; Two living rooms; Kitchen, scullery and dining areas; Laundry; Powder room; Store room; Courtyard;


Page 11

Balcony; and Garage.

Amended plans were received on 16 June 2016, with the following changes made: The primary street setbacks to the ground and upper floors have been increased from

6mto 7m and 8.5m to 10m, respectively, so as to comply with Local Planning Policy 2.9 – Residential Streetscapes;

The eastern boundary fencing extended further to the primary street due to the change in the primary street setback.

Refer to Attachment 1 for revised development plans. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

The proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4, the R-Codes relevant local planning policies. Where a proposal does not meet the relevant ‘deemed to comply’ requirements of the R Codes, an assessment is made against the relevant design principles of the R Codes. Not meeting the deemed-to-comply requirements cannot be used as a reason for refusal. In this particular application the areas outlined below either do not meet the ‘deemed to comply’ provisions of the R-Codes or seek policy discretions:

Sight lines; Visual privacy

Some of the City’s policies replace or augment the deemed-to-comply criteria of the R-Codes. In this application Council has the ability, through its policy provisions, to apply discretion in the following areas when determining the application:

Boundary walls Fencing

The above matters will be discussed further in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of the report below. CONSULTATION

Heritage The original proposal was referred to the City’s internal heritage department for comment on the compatibility of the proposal within the context of the streetscape of Gold Street. The following comments were provided: “The proposed design of the new residence will have a negative impact on the significant prevailing streetscape of the area. The height and scale of the design is unsympathetic to the predominately single storey houses in the street and would overwhelm streetscape; moreover, the design is unsympathetic to the character of the area.


Page 12

The Design conflicts with local planning Scheme No.4 clause 4.2 Objectives of the Zones and 10.2 Matters to be considered by Council 10.2.1 (s) and Local Planning Policy 2.9 Residential Streetscape Policy.” Refer to Attachment 3 for a full copy of the Heritage Assessment. The applicant has since amended the plans and the proposal now complies with LPP 2.9 (ground and upper floor front setbacks). The revised plans were referred back to the City’s internal heritage department, where some concern was raised in relation to the roof form and design. The comments state: “House, 19 Gold Street, South Fremantle is located in the predominately intact streetscape of Gold Street which consists of simple single storey houses with front verandahs and simple front fence. While the roof form proposed in the revised plans depicts a stepped roof formation, the streetscape perspectives are considered to demonstrate that the roof form would have a limited visual impact on adjoining properties. The streetscape montage provided by the applicant is of a scale and form that, despite not being entirely desired, is not deemed to result in a significant disruption to the visual continuity towards the facades of other houses along the street. It is also recognised that the proposal now complies with the City’s Local Planning Policy 2.9. Recommendation: That the proposed new build can be supported on heritage grounds.” Refer to Attachment 4 for a copy of the Heritage Assessment on the revised plans. Community The original application was required to be advertised in accordance with Council’s LPP1.3 – Public notification of planning proposals as design principle assessments and policy discretions are sought. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 20 April 2016, the City had received 3 submissions. The following planning issues were raised during the notification period (summarised):

The design of the house is not sympathetic to the character of the streetscape;

The boundary walls would have a detrimental building bulk impact on the adjoining properties;

The balcony would result in an adverse impact by facilitating overlooking onto adjoining properties and a disruption of visual privacy;

The discretion to the primary street setback should not be supported as it is not sensitive to the nature of the street;

The tall feature wall is out of scale with the street;

The proposed plan will cause a significant loss of sunlight to adjoining properties;

The loss of trees onsite will further contribute to a detrimental impact by way of overlooking.


Page 13

The above concerns are discussed further in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report. The amended plans were not readvertised to nearby neighbours as per LPP 1.3 as the changes resulted in several discretions being addressed. PLANNING COMMENT

Residential Design Codes Sight Lines

Element Deemed-to-comply Provided Design Principle Assessment

Sight lines Walls, fences and other structures truncated or reduced to no higher than 0.75m within 1.5m of where walls, fences, other structures adjoin vehicle access points

Up to 1.9m high solid fencing where the property adjoins a vehicle access point

Up to 1.15m of solid fencing

The proposed sight lines are not considered to meet the design principles of the R-Codes for the following reasons: The height of the fencing proposed at the vehicle access point is not considered to

provide safe sight lines and a high degree of visibility to the footpath and the street. This section of fencing is recommended to be conditioned to meet the R-Codes by either truncating the fencing or reducing the height, in order to provide safe sight lines in accordance with the above clause. Visual Privacy

Element Deemed-to-comply Provided Design Principle Assessment

East (balcony) 7.5m 1.5m Up to 6m

West (balcony) 7.5m 4.7m Up to 2.8m

The proposed visual privacy setbacks are considered to be supportable under the design principles of the R-Codes for the following reasons: The degree of overlooking to the eastern property would be predominantly oblique

rather than direct, as evidenced from the 3D perspective below, and to this end the impact on visual privacy is considered to be reduced as those standing on the balcony will mostly be looking onto the roof at the adjoining eastern property. The overlooking from the balcony to the east would have a minimal impact on any windows on the western elevation of 21 Gold Street, as the degree of viewing would not facilitate direct overlooking, given the 1.5m setback to the adjoining property.


Page 14

The balcony also facilitates mutual surveillance over the street; In addition to overlooking the roof, the balcony provides direct view towards the front

setback area of the eastern adjoining property. The front setback area is not considered to be a sensitive area in respect to visual privacy as this space is viewable from the street. In this regard, overlooking onto an area that is viewable from the street is not considered to have an adverse impact on the privacy of a property.

The overlooking provided from towards the west from the balcony is not supported due to the potential to impact on the visual privacy of this adjoining property, which would facilitate overlooking into adjoining windows. A condition of approval is recommended to address this concern.

Local Planning Policy 2.4 – Boundary Walls in Residential Development Boundary Walls

Element Deemed-to-comply setback Provided Discretion

East 2.4m 0m

Up to 2.4m

West 1m Up to 1m

The proposed boundary walls are considered to be supportable under LPP 2.4 for the following reasons: The height and length of the boundary wall on the western elevation, being a

maximum of 3.2m and 9.3m respectively, are not considered to contribute to a significant sense of building bulk and confinement to the affected property, as a portion of this boundary uses a louvre screen finish, which is considered to be more lightweight than typical building materials

The height and length of the eastern boundary wall is 3.3m and 11.8m, respectively, and due to the change in topography from the adjoining eastern property, the impact of building bulk is considered to be reduced. The existing dwelling at 19 Gold Street


Page 15

has a reduced setback to the eastern boundary at present, as shown below. To this end, the impact of building bulk on this eastern adjoining property, through the boundary wall proposed, is not considered to be significant due to the present site context.

Due to the orientation of the site, the affected properties would not be impacted by

overshadowing as per the measurement in the R-Codes; The adjoining properties would still be afforded with necessary ventilation and

sunlight to the major openings and open spaces on site; The western boundary wall to the courtyard space is considered to minimise the

extent of overlooking and resultant loss of privacy on the adjoining property; Overall, the boundary walls proposed are not considered to result in a significant

adverse impact on the amenity of the adjoining neighbours for the abovementioned reasons.

Local Planning Policy 2.8 – Fences Policy Fencing

Element Required Provided Discretion

Primary Street Fencing

Visually permeable above 1m in height, to a maximum height of 1.8m

Sold fencing to a maximum height of 1.9m

Up to 0.9m of solid fencing

Dividing Fence (east)

1.8m height Maximum of 2m high Up to 0.2m

The proposed primary street fencing is not considered to supportable against the City’s LPP 2.8 for the following reasons: The proposed primary street fencing height is not considered to be consistent with the

existing heights of fencing within the streetscape; and


Page 16

There are no significant changes in topography along this particular section of the site to justify the variations in height.

Given the above, the fencing height in the primary street setback area is recommended to be conditioned so as to meet clause 1.1 of LPP 2.8. The eastern boundary fence is considered to be supportable against the City’s LPP 2.8 for the following reasons: The proposed fencing is not considered to result a significant impact on the eastern

adjoining property by way of overshadowing or solar access, due to the orientation of the site. Further, there are not considered to be any views obstructed through the additional 20cm of height being sought for the boundary fencing.

D.G.S2 – South Terrace, South and Attfield Streets and Lefroy Road Local Area Policy The proposed development is considered to meet the relevant provisions of D.G.S2 for the following reasons: The front setback proposed is consistent with the provision of the policy relating to

uniformity in respect to the primary street setbacks of existing buildings within the streetscape;

The proposed development is considered to be of a scale and mass that is comparable to dwellings within the street, having regard to the two storey building immediately to the west (17 Gold Street), and the two storey dwellings opposite the street;

The impact of visual privacy is considered to be minor, as the overlooking is over the primary street setback area of the adjoining property to the east, and in this regard to the development is considered to meet the provisions of the policy relating to visual privacy.

It should be noted that this local planning policy was adopted in 1993 and refers to provisions of Town Planning Scheme No. 3, which is now rescinded and no longer in effect. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS The proposal has been assessed against the City’s following strategic documents: Strategic Plan 2010 – 15: Provide for population and economic growth by planning and promoting development and renewal in designated precincts within the City. Green Plan 2020: Four trees on site are being removed as part of the application, with no replacement trees proposed. It is noted that planning approval is generally not required for the removal of trees on private land.


Page 17

OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION

That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the two storey Single House at No. 19 (Lot 55) Gold Street, South Fremantle, subject to the following conditions: 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the

approved plans, dated 16 June 2016. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.

2. Notwithstanding condition 1, the primary street fencing, circled in red on the plans, is to be reduced in height to a maximum of 1 metre of solid fencing and up to 1.8m of visually permeable fencing so as to comply with the City’s Local Planning Policy 2.8, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

3. Prior to the issue of a building permit, the eastern primary street fencing

shall be truncated or reduced to 0.75m height within 1.5m of the vehicle access point or treated in an alternative manner approved by the Chief Executive Officer – City of Fremantle in order to provide adequate sight lines or otherwise comply with Clause 5.2.5 C5 of the Residential Design Codes.

4. All stormwater discharge shall be contained and disposed of on site, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

5. Prior to occupation of the development approved as part of DA0145/16, on plans dated 16 June 2016 the opening to the balcony located on the western elevation shall be screened in accordance with Clause 5.4.1 C1.1 of the Residential Design Codes by either: a) fixed obscured or translucent glass to a height of 1.60 metres above

floor level, or b) fixed with vertical screening, with openings not wider than 5cm and

with a maximum of 25% perforated surface area, to a minimum height of 1.60 metres above the floor level, or

c) a minimum sill height of 1.60 metres as determined from the internal floor level, or

d) an alternative method of screening approved by the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

The required screening shall be provided and maintained to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

6. Prior to occupation, the boundary walls located on the western and eastern

boundaries shall be of a clean finish in either;

coloured sand render;

face brick;

painted surface; or,

other approved finish


Page 18

and be thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer - City of Fremantle.

Advice Note (i) The applicant is advised that the definition of visually permeable in the

City’s Local Planning Policy 2.8 – Fences Policy is as follows: Means, in reference to a wall, gate, door or fence that the vertical surface has:

Continuous vertical or horizontal gaps of at least 50mm width occupying not less than one half of its face in aggregate of the entire surface or where narrower than 50mm, occupying at least two thirds of the face in aggregate, as viewed directly from the street; or

A surface offering equal or lesser obstruction to view.


Page 19

PC1607-3 CHESTER STREET, NO. 29B (LOT 901), SOUTH FREMANTLE - PARTIAL CHANGE OF USE TO BED AND BREAKFAST FOR EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE - (NB DA0192/16)

ECM Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 6 July 2016 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Committee Previous Item Number/s: N/A Attachments: Attachment 1: Development Plans

Attachment 2: Site Photo Date Received: 20 April 2016 Owner Name: Mr Bo English & Ms Katarina Hertroijs Submitted by: Katarina Hertroijs Scheme: Urban Heritage Listing: Not listed Existing Landuse: ‘Residential – R30’ Use Class: Single House and Bed and Breakfast Use Permissibility: ‘P’ and ‘A’


Page 20

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application seeks planning approval for a Bed and Breakfast to an existing Single House at No. 29B (Lot 901) Chester Street, South Fremantle. The application is presented to the Planning Committee (PC) on the basis of objections received during the community consultation period that cannot be resolved through the imposition of planning approval conditions to the satisfaction of the neighbours and discretionary assessments against the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes). The application has been assessed against the R-Codes, local planning policies and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4), and is seeking the following Design Principle Assessments-

Vehicle parking;

Discretionary land use The above discretions are considered to meet the applicable design principles and as such, the application is recommended for approval. BACKGROUND

No. 29B Chester Street is located on the western side of Chester Street three blocks north of Douro Road and just south of Parmelia Park. The site is zoned ‘Residential – R30’ and is located within the South Fremantle Heritage Area but the house itself is not heritage listed. A review of the property files reveals the following history for the site:

On 24 June 2010 the City approved an application for a two storey single house with two parking bays.

DETAIL

The application seeks planning approval for a partial change of use to Bed and Breakfast and involves the following: The number of guests to the Bed and Breakfast at any one time will be limited to one

family (maximum of four (4) individuals comprising a maximum of two (2) adults and two (2) children);

The Bed and Breakfast business will use the upper floor, which consists of 1 bedroom, bathroom and living room/spare bedroom;

Although the floor plans indicate two parking bays, one has been replaced with a garden and pergola (Attachment 2). Therefore, there is one (1) car bay on site with two (2) additional spaces available on the crossover without encroaching into the road or footpath;

No additional employees will be required, with the current residents of the site proposing to operate the business (and reside on site as required by the scheme definition of a bed and breakfast).


Page 21

Refer to Attachment 1 for development plans. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

The proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4, the R-Codes and relevant local planning policies. The proposal seeks the following discretion from the provisions of LPS4;

Vehicle parking;

Discretionary land use The above matters are discussed in detail in the Planning Comment section below. CONSULTATION

Community

The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4, as a ‘Bed and Breakfast’ is an ‘A’ use and has a parking shortfall. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 16 May 2016, the City had received one submission raising the following issue:

The amount of car parking on verges and on the street is very annoying to local

residents.

PLANNING COMMENT

Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) Discretionary Land Use The definition of Bed and Breakfast in LPS4 is as follows:

means a dwelling, used by a resident of the dwelling, to provide accommodation for persons away from their normal place of residence on a short-term commercial basis and includes the provision of breakfast.

The proposed application meets this above definition, based on the information provided in the application. A bed and breakfast land use is an “A” use in a residential zone which means that the use is not permitted unless the Council has exercised its discretion and has granted planning approval after advertising the proposal. The proposed change of use to ‘Bed and Breakfast’ is considered meet the objectives of the Residential zone pursuant to clause 4.2.1 of LPS4 for the following reasons:

The anticipated number of occupants is limited by the small floor area proposed (being 1 bedroom and 1 living room) and the layout, which requires guests to walk through the living room/spare bedroom to reach the main bedroom. Due to this it is


Page 22

unlikely that both rooms would be let to guests unrelated to each other who may also have separate vehicles.

The owner has a cot and mattress for two small children and states that the maximum occupancy would be a family comprising two adults and two children. The owner also states there is room for three adults if the living room is used as a bedroom. However, due to the possible amenity impacts from another adult, including the possible use of an additional car, it is recommended occupancy be limited to a family of four.

In light of the above, the traffic impacts emanating from this land use are not considered to be significant to the extent that there would be a significant negative impact on the amenity of the surrounding area.

There is sufficient off street parking available as well as access to public transport (see below for further details);

The low intensity and nature of the land use is considered to be compatible with the character of the surrounding area.

From a compliance perspective it would be difficult to include a planning approval condition limiting occupants of the bed and breakfast to 2 adults and 2 children. Based on the owners advice that a cot and mattress could be provided for 2 small children, it is considered that a condition limiting the bed and breakfast to a maximum of 1 bed (which would be for the adults and excludes a cot or a mattress on the floor) would be consistent with the owners advice and would be easy to enforce. Vehicle Parking

Element Bays Required Bays Provided Shortfall

R-Codes 1 1 0

LPS4 1:1 guest bedroom = 2

0 (on-site) 2 (on crossover)

2

Under the R-Codes a single house in this location only requires one car bay. The City’s LPS4 requires one car bay for each bedroom of a Bed and Breakfast. The proposal therefore requires a total of three car bays to be located on the lot. The discretion to vehicle parking is considered to be supportable under clause 5.7.3.1 of LPS4 for the following reasons:

The existing crossover can safely accommodate two (2) vehicles without encroaching into the road or footpath, resulting in a total of three car bays associated with the site.

The subject site is located approximately 250 metres from a high frequency bus stop (Blue CAT).

The subject site is located near several mixed use zones that provide a wide array of goods and services, resulting in less need for a private vehicle.

There exists ample street parking in the area as well as easy access to public transportation.


Page 23

The application is therefore recommended for conditional approval. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS The proposal is consistent with the City’s following strategic documents: Strategic Plan 2010 – 15:

Maintain and grow tourist and visitor servicing. No trees are proposed to be removed from the property. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the partial change of use to ‘Bed and Breakfast’ to existing single house at No. 29B (Lot 901) Chester Street, South Fremantle, as detailed on plans dated 20 April 2016, subject to the following conditions:

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans, dated 20 April 2016. It does not relate to any other development on this lot.

2. The number of guests for the Bed and Breakfast land use hereby approved

is limited to a maximum of one (1) bed.

ADVICE TO APPLICANT

1. In relation to condition 2 above, the maximum of 1 bed excludes a cot or a mattress on the floor.


Page 24

PC1607-4 SOUTH TERRACE, NO. 65 (LOT 12), FREMANTLE - EXTENSION TO THE TERM OF PLANNING APPROVAL FOR DA0108/10 (THREE STOREY MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT (MEDICAL CENTRE, HOSPITAL, 4 MULTIPLE DWELLINGS) - (AD ET01/16)

ECM Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 6 July 2016 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Senior Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Committee Previous Item Number/s: PSC1404-65 (PSC 2 April 2014) Attachment 1: Request for Extension to term of Planning Approval for

DA0108/10 letter Attachment 2: Planning Approval for DA0108/10 Date Received: 2 June 2016 Owner Name: Auzcorp Medical Services of Australia Pty Ltd Submitted by: As above Scheme: Mixed Use (R35) Heritage Listing: Yes (limestone features);

Not located within heritage area Existing Landuse: Vacant Use Class: ‘Medical Centre’, ‘Hospital’, ‘Multiple Dwellings’ Use Permissibility: ‘A’, ‘D’, ‘A’

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application is presented to the Planning Committee (PC) due to the nature of the proposed variations regarding the proposed development. The applicant is seeking an extension to the term of Planning Approval for DA0108/10 (three storey mixed use development (Medical Centre, Hospital, 4 Multiple Dwellings) at No. 65 (Lot 12) South Terrace, Fremantle.


Page 25

The request has been assessed against the provisions of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 and Council’s Local Planning Policies. It is not considered that the proposed request for an extension to term of Planning Approval satisfies Clause 3.2(a) of Council’s Local Planning Policy 1.1 - Amendment to and Extension to the Term of Planning Approvals as there have been material changes to LPS4 and Local Planning Policies since Planning Approval was granted on 8 June 2010. Accordingly, the request for an extension to term of Planning Approval for DA0108/10 is recommended for refusal. BACKGROUND

The site is zoned ‘Mixed Use’ with a density coding of R35 under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) and is located within the South Fremantle Local Planning Area 4 (LPA 4) – sub area 4.3.1 as prescribed in Schedule 12 of LPS4. The site is located in the street block bounded by Suffolk Street to the north-west, Marine Terrace to the south-west, Arundel Street the south-east and South Terrace to the north-east. The site is individually listed on the City’s Heritage List and Municipal Heritage Inventory for limestone features; however it is not located within a prescribed Heritage Area under Clause 7.2 of LPS4. The subject site is 1,169m2, is located on the corner of South Terrace and Suffolk Street and is currently vacant. In terms of its topography, the subject site falls by approximately 1.00 metre downwards from its north-eastern boundary (fronting South Terrace) down to its south-western boundary. A review of the property file revealed the following information relevant to planning and/or to this application:

At its meeting of 5 November 2008, the PSC resolved to refuse an application for Planning Approval for a hospital, medical centre and grouped dwellings at No. 65 (Lot 12) South Terrace, Fremantle (refer DA143/08). This decision was ultimately appealed by the applicant at the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) (refer matter no. DR 485 of 2008);

On 7 December 2009, the SAT ordered in relation to matter no. DR 485 of 2008 that: “1. The application for review is dismissed. 2. The decision of the respondent made on 5 November 2008 to refuse

development approval for the construction of a development described as ‘medical consulting, day surgery facility, 26 bed inpatient and four apartments at No 65 South Terrace, Fremantle is affirmed.”

At its meeting of 2 June 2010, the PSC granted conditional Planning Approval for three storey mixed use development (Medical Centre, Hospital, 4 Multiple Dwellings) at No. 65 (Lot 12) South Terrace, Fremantle (refer DA0108/10);

On 8 March 2012, the City granted an extension to the term of Planning Approval for DA0108/10 (three storey mixed use development (Medical Centre, Hospital, 4 Multiple Dwellings) at No. 65 (Lot 12) South Terrace, Fremantle (refer ET03/12). This would mean that the applicant would have to substantially commence the development of DA0108/10 by 8 June 2014;

On 5 February 2013, the City granted conditional Planning Approval for fencing and signage additions to existing vacant site at No. 65 (Lot 12) South Terrace, Fremantle (refer DA0593/12).


Page 26

On 26 February 2014, the City received an application seeking an extension to the term of Planning Approval for DA0108/10 (three storey mixed use development (Medical Centre, Hospital, 4 Multiple Dwellings) at No. 65 (Lot 12) South Terrace, Fremantle (refer ET02/14).

At its meeting of 2 April 2014, Council’s then Planning Services Committee (PSC) considered an application for an extension to the term of Planning Approval for DA0108/10 (three storey mixed use development (Medical Centre, Hospital, 4 Multiple Dwellings) at No. 65 (Lot 12) South Terrace, Fremantle (refer ET02/14). The City recommended that this request be refused, on the basis of non-compliance with Council’s LPP1.1. Ultimately, the PSC went against the City’s recommendation for refusal, resolving to approve the extension request. This extension resulted in the approved development having to be substantially commenced by 8 June 2016, unless an additional request for an extension was received before its expiration.

DETAIL

On 2 June 2016, the City received an application seeking an extension to the term of Planning Approval for DA0108/10 (three storey mixed use development (Medical Centre, Hospital, 4 Multiple Dwellings) at No. 65 (Lot 12) South Terrace, Fremantle (refer ET02/14). A copy of the request is contained as ‘Attachment 1’ of this report. A copy of the original planning approval is contained as ‘Attachment 2’ of this report. This is the third extension to the term of planning approval sought by the applicant for this development, with the first two having been granted. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

The proposal was assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4 and Council’s Local Planning Policies. Discretions sought by this application are discussed in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report. CONSULTATION

Community

The request for extension to term of Planning Approval for DA0108/10 was not required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4 and/or Council’s Local Planning Policy 1.3 - Notification of Planning Proposals (LPP1.3).

PLANNING COMMENT

Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4)

Clause 10.5.2 of the LPS4 provides that:

“A written request may be made to the Council for an extension of the term of planning approval at any time prior to the expiry of the approval period in clause 10.5.1 (a).

Note: Refer policy.”


Page 27

In relation to the above, clause 10.5.1(a) of LPS4 provides that:

“Where the Council grants planning approval for development of land—

(a) the development is to be substantially commenced within two (2) years, or such other period as specified in the approval, after the date of determination, ...”

As detailed in the ‘Background’ section of this report, on 8 June 2010 conditional Planning Approval was granted for a three Storey Mixed Use Development (Medical Centre, Hospital, 4 Multiple Dwellings) at No. 65 (Lot 12) South Terrace, Fremantle (refer DA0108/10). Subsequently, on 8 March 2012, the City granted an extension to term of Planning Approval for DA0108/10 for a further two years. Further, a second request for an extension to term of planning approval for DA0108/10 was granted by the then Planning Services Committee (PSC) at its meeting of 2 April 2014 for a further two years, despite the City recommending refusal due to non-compliance with Council’s LPP1.1. Based on this latest extension of term to planning approval granted, this means the applicant would have had to substantially commence the development of DA0108/10 by 8 June 2016. At the time Council considers this item at its meeting of 6 July 2016, this has not occurred and therefore unless the applicant had applied to have an extension considered before the expiry of the extension (ie written request made by 8 June 2016) Planning Approval lapses and is no longer valid. As the application for the extension of the term of Planning Approval for DA0108/10 was received prior to 8 June 2016 (application received by City on 2 June 2016), Council has the ability to grant the requested extension to the term of this approval under Clause 10.5.2 of LPS4, subject to satisfying the provisions of Council’s Local Planning Policy 1.1 - Amendment to and Extension to the Term of Planning Approvals (LPP1.1). Council’s Local Planning Policies

Local Planning Policy 1.1 - Amendment to and Extension to the Term of Planning Approvals (LPP1.1)

Clause 3.1 – 3.3 inclusive of Council’s LPP1.1 states:

“3.1 Where an extension is granted, a period of up to a further two years will be granted.

3.2 In considering a request for an extension to the term of a planning approval under clause 10.5.2 of the Scheme, Council may have regard to the following factors;

(a) whether the scheme or a relevant planning policy has changed in a material way since the planning approval was granted;

(b) whether in granting the planning approval, a discretion was exercised in relation to the Scheme or policy requirements; and

(c) whether a material change has occurred to either the site to which the planning approval relates or the surrounding locality since the planning approval was granted.


Page 28

3.3 Where a request to extend the term of a planning approval is approved, a letter will be issued advising the applicant of this. No new approval will be issued and all other conditions of the approval will remain unchanged.”

In relation to 3.2(a) above, there have been a number of material legislative changes since Planning Approval was granted for DA0108/10 on 8 June 2010. These are detailed below. Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015

New Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (herein referred to as the ‘Regulations’) were gazetted on 25 August 2015 and took effect on 19 October 2015. The Regulations are a major part of WA’s planning reform agenda and make changes to permitted development and other planning processes. These regulations sit separately to any applicable town/local planning schemes and have effect throughout Western Australia. It is not considered that the Regulations will materially affect how development on this property is considered in their current form. Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4)

Clauses 11.8.6.2 and 11.8.6.3 of LPS4 were gazetted on 18 January 2013 which related to DA’s with a building height of 11m or greater having to go before the City’s Design Advisory Committee (DAC) before determination. DA0108/10 proposed heights greater than 11m and as such, and in accordance with Clause 11.8.6.2 of LPS4, the proposal would have to go before the City’s DAC. Residential Design Codes

On 22 November 2010, amended ‘Multiple Dwelling’ provisions of R-Codes came into effect. It is generally considered that these amended ‘Multiple Dwelling’ provisions are more generous in their development requirements and as such this in and of itself is not likely to materially affect the previous discretions sought. The R-Codes were further amended on numerous occasions since 22 November 2010, with the latest edition gazetted on 23 October 2015. Council’s Local Planning Policies

The following Local Planning Policies have been adopted since the previous Planning Approval for DA0108/10 and would be relevant to any new development of comparable size and scale as approved:

LPP1.9 – Design Advisory Committee & Principles of Design (adopted 27 July 2011);

LPP2.13 – Sustainable Buildings Design Requirements (adopted 11 June 2013). Based on the above, it is considered that there have been a number of legislative material changes to the City’s LPS4, R-Codes and Council’s Local Planning Policies since Planning Approval for DA0108/10 was granted on 8 June 2010 and therefore an extension to the term of Planning Approval for DA0108/10 should not be supported. Should Council ultimately refuse the request for a third extension to term of Planning Approval for DA0108/10, there will effectively be two options for the applicant:

(a) That they substantially commence development for DA0108/10 by no later than 8 June 2016. Failure to do so will see the Planning Approval for DA0108/10 lapse and


Page 29

be of no further effect. Given that the earliest this item was able to be considered by Planning Committee was 2 July 2016, this option has lapsed and is not applicable; or

(b) Re-apply for Planning Approval for the development by submitting a new development application.

It is noted that should option (b) be exercised by the applicant that it is probable that the application will qualify for either a mandatory or voluntary (opt-in) Development Assessment Panel (DAP) application. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS The proposal has been assessed against the City’s following strategic documents: Economic Development Strategy 2011-15: the proposal potentially increases the number of residents in the area; provides additional commercial businesses established in Fremantle providing employment opportunities Green Plan 2020: The proposal includes the removal of approximately 5 trees on-site, located on the western and southern boundaries. No replacement on-site trees are proposed as part of this proposal. It is noted that planning approval is generally not required for the removal of trees on private land. CONCLUSION

The proposed request seeking an extension to the term of Planning Approval for DA0108/10 (three storey mixed use development (Medical Centre, Hospital, 4 Multiple Dwellings) at No. 65 (Lot 12) South Terrace, Fremantle has been assessed against the provisions of LPS4 and Council’s Local Planning Policies. It is not considered that the proposed request for an extension to term of Planning Approval satisfies Clause 3.2(a) of Council’s LPP1.1 as there have been material changes to LPS4 and Local Planning Policies since Planning Approval was granted on 8 June 2010. Accordingly, the request for an extension to term of Planning Approval for DA0108/10 is recommended for refusal. Should the Planning Committee consider that the extension to the term of Planning Approval for DA0108/10 should be supported, the following recommendation would apply:

That Council APPROVE the application under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the extension to the term of Planning Approval granted on 8 June 2010 for DA0108/10 for a period not exceeding two years, from the date of 8 June 2016 for the three Storey Mixed Use Development (Medical Centre, Hospital, 4 Multiple Dwellings) at No. 65 (Lot 12) South Terrace, Fremantle, subject to the same terms and conditions as stated on the Notice of Determination on Application for Planning Approval letter dated 8 June 2010, reference DA0108/10.


Page 30


That Council REFUSE the application under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the extension to the term of Planning Approval granted on 8 June 2010 for DA0108/10 for the three Storey Mixed Use Development (Medical Centre, Hospital, 4 Multiple Dwellings) at No. 65 (Lot 12) South Terrace, Fremantle, for the following reasons: 1. In accordance with Clause 3.2(a) of the City of Fremantle’s Local Planning

Policy 1.1 - Amendment to and Extension to the Term of Planning Approvals, there has been material changes to:

(a) The City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4; and

(b) The City of Fremantle Local Planning Policies,

since the Planning Approval for DA0108/10 was granted on 8 June 2010.


Page 31

PC1607-5 SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY

Acting under authority delegated by the Council the Manager Development Approvals determined, in some cases subject to conditions, each of the applications listed in the Attachments and relating to the places and proposal listed.


That the information is noted.


Page 32

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COUNCIL DECISION)

PC1607-6 LOCAL PLANNING POLICY LPP 2.14 - ADVERTISEMENT POLICY - FINAL ADOPTION

DataWorks Reference: 117/046 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Coordinator Statutory Planning Decision Making Authority: Council Previous Item: PC1611 (PC 13 January 2016 and OMC 27 January

2016) and PC1605-9 (PC 4 May 2016 and OMC 25 May 2016)

Attachments: 1. Draft Policy LPP2.14 2. DBH6 Signs and Hoarding Policy 3. Previous Item PC1611

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to recommend that Council adopt local planning policy LPP 2.14 ‘Advertisement Policy’, without modification. The local planning policy will state Council’s expectation with respect advertisements/ signage for all development applications within zoned and reserved land under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No.4 (LPS4). The draft local planning policy was placed out for public comment for 28 days, in accordance with clause 4 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (P&D Regulations), with no submissions received. It is also proposed to formally revoke current planning policy DBH6 ‘Signs and Hoarding’ (DBH6) which will be superseded should this policy be adopted. BACKGROUND

Refer to ‘Attachment 2’ below for previous background information for this draft policy matter. At its ordinary meeting held 25 May 2016, Council resolved to defer the final adoption of LPP2.14 the next appropriate Planning Committee as some questions were raised in regards to the drafted exempted development provisions contained in the draft policy at this time. The questions relate to (a) removing restrictions on property development signs and (b) removing restrictions on construction signs. City Officers have reviewed the questions and provided options for amending clause 5 of the draft policy.


Page 33

STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS It is proposed to adopt a Local Planning Policy in accordance with Part 2 clause 4 of the P&D Regulations and revoke current DBH6 policy in accordance with Part 2 clause 6 of the P& D Regulations. A Local Planning Policy does not form part of the Scheme and cannot bind the Council in respect of any application for planning approval. The Council is, however, required to have due regard to the provisions and objectives of such in making a determination on a planning matter. CONSULTATION

The draft policy was advertised in accordance with Clause 4 of the P&D Regulations and Council’s LPP1.3 – Notification of planning proposals policy (LPP1.3), for a period of no less than 28 days via:

Two consecutive notices in the local newspaper;

City’s web site;

Letter to all precinct groups;

Letter to the Chamber of Commerce

Letter to the Bid The advertising period concluded on 12 March 2016. No submissions were received by the City during this consultation period. PLANNING COMMENT

Refer to ‘Attachment 2’ below for previous discussion regarding the original intent and policy provisions changes proposed as part of this policy adoption process. Some matters have been raised by Elected Members regarding the ‘Exempted Advertisement’ provisions contained in clause 5 of the draft policy, specifically to do with ‘property disposal’ and ‘construction sites’ advertisements. It is noted that the criteria provided in the current draft policy are identical to that prescribed in Schedule 5 of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No.4 (LPS4) today. An excerpt for these relevant criteria of the current draft policy is as follows:


Page 34

In all zones Property disposal One sign per street frontage

advertising for sale, lease or rent the property on which the sign is situated.

Maximum area as follows—

Sites less than 5000 sqm - 2 sqm Sites greater than 5000sqm - 5 sqm

In all zones Construction sites One sign per street frontage advertising details of the project, architects, contractors or builders, displayed only for the duration of the construction.


Sites less than 5000 sqm — 2 sqm Sites greater than 5000 sqm — 5

sqm

The intention of limiting such advertisements to one sign per street frontage and restricting the m2 of the signage is to limit any amenity impacts created by the exempt development. The following existing advertisements were considered as case studies as to how the current provisions of the draft policy would have dealt with existing Property disposal & Construction Site advertisements throughout the Fremantle locality.

Site 1 - No.65 South Terrace, Fremantle (Cnr Suffolk Street).


Page 35

Comment: Planning approval was granted by the City as this advertisement did not meet the relevant ‘Exempt Advertisement’ provisions of LPS4 at the time of assessment. The advertisement is 1.8m high and extends the entire Suffolk Street and South Terrace perimeter of the property. This advertisement is not for property disposal, but rather advertising construction site advertisements of the future approved land use / development and site occupiers.

Site 2: - No291 High Street, Fremantle.

Comment: Property Sales sign for Knutsford Street redevelopment at No.20 Knutsford Street. Planning Approval was granted for this property disposal sign as the sign exceeded the relevant m2 restrictions in schedule 5 of LPS4 at the time of assessment of the application and the advertisement related to a 3rd party property that was not the property it was erected upon.

Site 4 – No.138 Stirling Highway, North Fremantle – Taskers Development advertisement.

Comment: Similar to Site No.2 sign, Planning Approval was granted for this property disposal sign as the sign exceeded the relevant m2 restrictions in schedule 5 of LPS4 at the time of assessment of the application and the advertisement related to a 3rd party property that was not the property it was erected upon.


Page 36

Site 4 – No.36 Queen Victoria Street, Fremantle – Property Disposal Sign – Heirloom Development Advertisements.

Comment: This advertisement would not be exempt under the current drafted provisions of LPP2.14. This advertisement is approximately 45m2.

At present all of the above advertisements would require Council’s planning approval under LPS4, due to the current restrictions to the Exempted Advertisement provisions of LPS4. In addition these signs do not meet the current or proposed replacement Exempt Advertisement provision of draft LPP2.14. If Council is minded to relax, and reduce the restrictions relating to property disposal and construction advertisements, three options present themselves: 1) Option 1 ~ Remove all size restrictions: Council may want to completely remove

the restriction to the m2 and number of signs per street frontage in cl 5. It is acknowledged that typically property disposal signage has a limited existence primarily because it’s intent relies solely on the disposal of the property it relates. When the property is sold or occupied the signage is typically removed as it becomes redundant. If Council agreed with the above, the following amended wording for this clause would be recommended:


Page 37

Land Use and/or

Development

Exempted Sign* Maximum Size & requirements

In all zones Property disposal

· Sign(s) per street frontage advertising for sale, lease or rent the property on which the sign is situated.

·

In all zones Construction sites

· Sign(s) per street frontage advertising details of the project, architects, contractors or builders, displayed only for the duration of the construction.

The above would allow multiple signs to be erected on any property without limitations on m2 size or height of such signs but does restrict the advertisement(s) to street frontages. For example in the situation of Site 4 – a sign or multiple signs would be able to cover the entire northern elevation of the building and this would be exempt from the need to obtain planning approval if this provision were applicable. In addition there would be no time limit on how long signs might remain but typically such signage can be controlled through clause 11.2 – Removal and repair of existing advertisements of LPS4. 2) Option 2 ~ restrict size but allow multiple signs: If Council was more inclined to

relax the current provisions to allow similar dimensioned signs but allow multiple numbers of property disposal or construction site advertisements to any site as identified in the all case examples above, the following alternative criteria would be applicable.

In all zones

Property disposal

Signs advertising the sale, lease or rent of the property on which the sign is situated.

Maximum area is as follows—


In all zones

Construction sites Signs advertising the details of the project, architects, contractors or builders, displayed only for the duration of the construction.




Page 38

The potential replacement criteria above would allow for multiple signs to be erected on a property to which the sign relates subject to merely satisfying the prescribed m2

requirement outlined above. The intent of restricting the size of such signage in the draft policy is to consider amenity impacts to the immediate locality to which the sign relates. The sign erected on Site 4 (Heirloom) is approximately 35m2 (5m x 7m) in area and thus would be exempt under the above noted table. If Council consider the 35m2 specified above either too small or too large for any reason, the m2 above listed can be amended accordingly. Council may also want to only increase the m2 requirements for certain zoned land of LPS4 and leave the current limited m2 in the draft policy for Residential zoned land only as follows:

In all zones, other than a Residential Zone


Maximum area is as follows— Sites less than 5000 sqm – 35sqm Sites greater than 5000sqm - 60sqm

In all Residential zones



Sites less than 5000 sqm – 2 sqm

Sites greater than 5000sqm -5 sqm

It’s considered that any likely significant amenity impacts to result from such a policy change would most commonly occur within residential zoned areas. 3) Option 3 ~ all signs on third party land: If Council wished to relax and allow the

ability for individuals to erect property disposal signage on 3rd party land, such as that shown in Site 2 (Knutsford Street signage) and Site 3 (Taskers development) above, then the wording in the third column of the two tables provided under Option 1 and 2 above would be deleted:

‘on which the sign is situated’ Illuminated property disposal and construction signs Another matter relating to exempt advertisement provisions of the draft policy is the ability for such signage to be illuminated. An example of such signage is as follows:


Page 39

The draft policy currently excludes all illuminated, radio and animated advertisements from the provisions of the Exempt Advertisement criteria of clause 5. The draft policy includes the following note as part of Clause 5 - Exempt Advertisements table:

*The exempted signs specified above exclude signs which contain any illumination or radio; animation or movement in its design or structure; reflective, retro-reflective or fluorescent materials in its design structure.

The intent to exclude these styles of advertisements is to enable a planning assessment to be undertaken by the City to determine if any amenity impacts would result from such proposed advertisements on neighbouring properties or the immediate locality. CONCLUSION

The City received no submissions during the advertising of the draft Local Planning Policy LPP 2.14 ‘Advertisements Policy’. Given the potential amenity impacts of relaxing restrictions it is recommended that Council adopt the policy without modification. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

That Council: 1. In accordance with Clause 4 of the Deemed Provisions of the Planning and

Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015:

(i) adopt the Local Planning Policy LPP 2.14 ‘Advertisement Policy’ as shown below:

CITY OF FREMANTLE

LOCAL PLANNING POLICY 2.14

ADVERTISEMENT POLICY

ADOPTION DATE: 25 May 2016 AUTHORITY: LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME NO.4


Page 40

STATUTORY BACKGROUND Clause 60 of the Planning & Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (P&D Regs) requires a person to obtain the prior development approval of the local government unless that development is of a type referred to in clause 61 – Development for which development approval not required of the P&D Regs. In addition to the relevant sub clauses of clause 61 of the P&D Regs, the following Scheme provisions are also relevant. Clause 8.2(d) of the Local Planning Scheme No.4 (the ‘Scheme’) specifies that any change to words, pictures, symbols, or colours of an approved advertisement where the change does not affect the size or purpose of the approved advertisement does not require planning approval. Clause 8.2(e) of the Scheme specifies that advertisements listed in Schedule 5 of the Scheme are considered to be ‘permitted development’. Clause 12.5 - Schedule 5 includes specific types of advertisements that are ‘permitted development’ and therefore exempt from the need to obtain planning approval. Clause 80 of the P&D Regs provides a Local Government with powers to issue a notice on the owners, occupiers or advertiser of properties that have advertisements that affects the amenity of the locality. PURPOSE The purpose of this policy is to provide requirements for advertisements where they require planning approval under the Planning & Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015 and the Local Planning Scheme No.4 (the Scheme) and identify specific instances where signage is exempt from the requirement to obtain planning approval. APPLICATION This local planning policy is prepared under the provisions of Part 2 of the P&D Regs. In making a determination under this Scheme the local government must have regard to each relevant local planning policy to the extent that the policy is consistent with this Scheme. The provisions of this policy apply to all land zoned and reserved under the Scheme. For advertisements proposed on land not zoned or reserved under the Scheme, the provisions of this policy will be used for guidance purposes only when undertaking a planning assessment. Sections 1 and 2 of this policy can only be varied by section 3.


Page 41

DEFINITIONS For the purposes of this policy the following definitions of the P&D Regs and the Scheme apply to this policy, ‘Advertisement’, ‘Sign’, Window Sign and ‘Temporary Sign’. In addition to these Scheme definitions, the following definitions apply:

Awning or Verandah Fascia sign means an advertisement attached to the fascia of an awning or verandah.

Below awning or Verandah sign means an advertisement attached to or supported below an awning, verandah.

Building identification sign and Wall or fascia sign means an advertisement attached to or painted on a wall or fascia of a building (including structures attached to the building) or on a structure that protrudes no more than 50mm from the wall, fascia or structure.

Pole, pylon or freestanding sign means advertisement which is erected on a permanently attached freestanding pole, pylon or other structure and used to advertise one or multiple tenancies on private land.

Projecting sign means an advertisement attached to and protruding perpendicularly or horizontally, from a building or structure but is not attached to the roof of the building or structure.

Roof sign means an advertisement that is displayed on, or erected on or above, the parapet or eaves or roof surface of a building.


Page 42

Illuminated sign means an advertisement illuminated by internal and/or external lights or composed of light devices that do not flash, change intensity or pattern. Advertisement that is considered illuminated will generally be considered under another definition of a sign and includes advertisements that are projected onto a building or vertical surface.

Animated Sign includes but not limited to any sign or its contents that moves, and includes flashing or “chasing” lights, as well as video signs, plasma and LCD screen signs and signs which are “trivision”, “variable message”, “changing message” and “fibre optic” signs.

Other sign means a sign that is not consistent with any of the other signage types defined for the purposes of this policy.

Exempt Advertisement means advertising that does not require the prior planning approval of Council.

POLICY 1 GENERAL ADVERTISMENT PROVISIONS 1.1 General requirements applicable to all signs:

(a) Advertisements will not be approved on properties primarily used for residential purposes where the advertisement does not pertain to a relevant home business, occupation or store on the site unless otherwise provided for in another local planning policy. (b) Advertisements are to be located and designed so as not to cause a

hazardous distraction to motorists, pedestrians or other road users.

(c) Advertisements will be compatible with the style, scale and character of the surrounding streetscape, and the predominant uses within the locality. Consideration will be given to the number and type of existing signs in the locality so as to avoid visual clutter.

(d) Advertisements shall not impede pedestrian or vehicle movements.

(e) Illuminated signs are to be maintained to operate as an illuminated sign; and

(f) Advertisements are not to emit a flashing or moving light or radio; animation or movement in its design or structure; reflective, retro-reflective or fluorescent materials in its design structure.

(g) Advertisements in the form of an Animated signs will not, be supported

by Council.

(h) Advertisements will not be approved on private land which include,


Page 43

i. the name, logo, or symbol of a company or other organisation that does not own or substantially occupy the site or building on which the advertisement is located, or

ii. a product or service not provided on the site on which the advertisement is located;

iii. a product or service that does not form part of the signage displaying the name, logo or symbol; of a company or other organisation that owns or substantially occupy the site or building on which the advertisement is located; or

iv. signs for an activity or event not occurring on the site on which the advertisement is located.

2 PROVISIONS FOR SPECIFIC TYPES OF ADVERTISMENT 2.1 The following provisions may be varied where it can be demonstrated that

the requirements of Clause 3 of this policy are met to the satisfaction of the Council.

2.2 Awning Fascia or Verandah Fascia Signs 2.2.1 Awning fascia or verandah fascia signs are deemed acceptable where:

(a) The advertisement(s) is contained within the depth of the existing fascia and does not exceed the length of the tenancy, and

(b) The advertisement(s) are restricted to three signs per street frontage per

tenancy. 2.3 Below Awning or Verandah Signs 2.3.1 Below Awning or Verandah signs are deemed acceptable where:

(a) The advertisement(s) allows for a headway of at least 2.75m as measured from the immediate below footpath level; and

(b) The advertisement is located so that it is perpendicular to the building

façade; and does not exceed the width of the awning or verandah; and (c) The advertisement is restricted to one sign per street frontage per

tenancy and can be double sided.

2.4 Wall, Fascia, Building Identification or Projecting Sign 2.4.1 Wall, Fascia or Projecting Signs are deemed acceptable where:

(a) The advertisement does not project above the fascia of the building and does not exceed the frontage of the tenancy; and

(b) The advertisement(s) are restricted to three signs per street frontage per

tenancy.


Page 44

2.5 Free Standing Sign or Pole or Pylon Sign 2.5.1 Free Standing Sign or Pole or Pylon Signs are deemed acceptable where:

(a) The advertisement is no more than the height of the immediately

adjoining subject building or no more than 6.0m in height whichever is the lesser; and

(b) The advertisement does not significantly obstruct the view between the

building and the street, thereby preventing casual surveillance of the street from the property and vice versa; and

(c) It can be demonstrated that the advertisement is consistent with a

particular design convention associated with a specific land use (ie pylon signs for petrol stations); and

(d) The advertisement is restricted to one sign per site, may include the

advertising of multiple tenancies and can be illuminated and / or double sided.

2.6 Window Sign 2.6.1 Window Signs are deemed acceptable where:

(a) Casual surveillance of the street is sufficiently maintained; and (b) The advertisement is no more than 50% coverage of the total window

area of the tenancy. 2.7 Roof Signs 2.7.1 Roof signs are deemed acceptable where:

(a) The advertisement does not project more than 1.5m above the height part of the roofline and does not exceed the length of the tenancy; and

(b) The advertisement is restricted to one sign per street frontage per tenancy and can be illuminated and / or double sided.

(c) The advertisement does not overshadow major openings or outdoor living space of neighbouring residential properties

2.8 Other Signs 2.8.1 In assessing advertisement(s) that are not consistent with the signage types

defined within this policy, the advertisements shall be assessed against, and be consistent with Clause 1 and Clause 3 (where applicable) of this policy.


Page 45

3 VARIATIONS TO STANDARDS 3.1 Council may vary the requirements outlined within Clause 1 and 2 where it

can be demonstrated that the following can be met to the satisfaction of the Council:

(a) The cumulative effect of the signage does not negatively impact on the

surrounding locality by way of visual clutter; and (b) The scale and design of the signage is subservient to the building to

which it relates, are sized in proportion with parapets, panels, windows and wall areas within close proximity to the proposed sign so as to not dominate the view of the building from the street.

4 ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR PROPERTIES ON THE HERITAGE LIST 4.1 In addition to the specific requirements outlined in this policy, the City is to

be satisfied that advertisement(s) proposed on properties included on the City’s Heritage List will not have a detrimental impact on the heritage significance of the site, in accordance with heritage advice provided as per the City’s L.P.P1.6 Preparing Heritage Assessments.

4.2 In addition to any heritage advice provided in accordance with clause 4.1,

Council will consider advertisements on heritage significant buildings acceptable when;

(a) The advertisement does not cover any significant architectural features

or detailing of a building, and (b) The advertisement does not significantly obstruct the view between the

building and the street. 5 EXEMPTED ADVERTISEMENTS Land Use

and/or Development

Exempted Sign* Maximum Size & requirements

In all zones Property disposal One sign per street frontage advertising for sale, lease or rent the property on which the sign is situated.



In all zones Construction sites One sign per street frontage advertising details of the project, architects, contractors or builders, displayed only for the duration of the construction.


Page 46


Sites less than 5000 sqm — 2 sqm Sites greater than 5000 sqm — 5 sqm

In all zones Temporary sign (refer to definition in Schedule 1 of the Scheme)

One sign per road frontage.

Maximum area as follows— Sites less than 5000 sqm — 2 sqm Sites greater than 5000 sqm — 5 sqm

In all zones, excluding the Residential zone

Sign not permanently attached (refer to definition in Schedule 1 of the Scheme)

One per street frontage,

located on the lot to which the sign relates and directly relating to the goods, services, or functions of the property on which it is located,

maximum area 2sqm, and

does not pose a hazard or obstruction to vehicle and/or pedestrian movement or sightlines.

In all zones, excluding the Residential zone

Window sign (refer to definition in Schedule 1 of the Scheme)

Provided the sign is/are displayed on the windows of the business premises from which the advertised item is sold, or the advertised services are supplied, and the total sign does not cover more than 50% of the total window area of the tenancy as viewed from the street.

In all zones Plaques or plates. On the site to which they pertain. Maximum area 0.2 sqm

In all zones Building identification Sign A single line of letters not exceeding 300mm in height and fixed to the façade of the building.

Local Reserves

Signs erected by a public authority, or on its behalf for the purpose of public safety or information and/or the direction and control of people, animals or vehicles

N/A

Road Reserves

Signs erected by a public authority, or on its behalf for the purpose of public safety or information and/or the direction and control of people, animals or vehicles

N/A

*The exempted signs specified above exclude signs which contain any illumination or radio; animation or movement in its design or structure; reflective, retro-reflective or fluorescent materials in its design structure.


Page 47

(ii) Publish notice of the adopted policy in a newspaper circulating in the Scheme area, in accordance with part 2 clause 4 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015 and Council’s LPP1.3 –policy.

2. Revoke DBH6 - Signage and Hoardings in accordance with Clause 6 of the

Deemed Provisions of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015.


Page 48

PC1607-7 DRAFT LOCAL STRUCTURE AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN - FORMER MATILDA BAY BREWERY SITE - RECOMMENDATION FOR FINAL ADOPTION

DataWorks Reference: 115/108 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: PC 6 July 2016; Council 27 July 2016 Responsible Officer: Manager Strategic Planning Actioning Officer: Senior Strategic Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: Nil Attachments: 1. Summary of Submissions

2. Applicant’s response to Structure plan guidelines 3. Applicant and CoF officer comments and recommendations on the LDP 4. Applicants response to Town of Mosman Park’s submission 5. Applicant’s response to MainRoad’s submission

Figure 1 – Proposed Local Structure Plan showing heights of LPP3.11

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to present for Council’s consideration the submissions received on the proposed former Matilda Bay Brewery Site Local Structure Plan (LSP) and Local Development Plan (LDP). The proposed LSP and LDP were advertised from Saturday 23 January - 19 February (28 days) for public comment. The public consultation period included a community information session held at the North Fremantle Bowling Club.


Page 49

At the completion of the public comment period the City had received 56 submissions (mostly objections) on the LSP and LDP. The City received one additional late submission from Main Roads WA after the public comment period had closed. Points made in the submissions were concerns around traffic, vehicle parking, Public Open Space, and the proposed building height, setbacks and density of new development on the site. Several submissions also commented on the Local Government advisory board’s pending advice on the proposal to amend the Town of Mosman Park's district boundary to include a portion of the suburb of North Fremantle currently located in the City of Fremantle. City officers requested and obtained from the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) an extension to the statutory period within which the local government must prepare a report and recommendation to the WAPC on the LSP, in order to discuss further with Main Roads WA measures to address traffic-related issues raised by the development proposed in the LSP and LDP. The extended period for provision of the City’s recommendation to the WAPC expires on 17 August 2016. It is recommended the proposed LSP be forwarded to the WAPC with the recommendation that it should be modified prior to approval, particularly to address the impacts of the proposal upon the surrounding road network and to increase public open space provision. Officers also recommend that the LDP be modified prior to forwarding to the WAPC for approval to address concerns raised in the submissions received. BACKGROUND

Site detail

The draft former Matilda Bay Brewery Site Local Structure Plan (LSP) and Local Development Plan (LDP) applies to the approximately 3.32 hectare area of land located near the City of Fremantle’s northern boundary and bounded by McCabe Street to the north, Stirling Highway to the west and Coventry Parade and Thompson Road to the South. The site comprises of the heritage listed former Matilda Bay Brewery building and surrounding semi industrial and commercial use lots, car parking and some vegetation along the perimeter. The site is adjoined by existing low density (R25) residential development (Rocky Bay) and new higher density (R80) residential (9-11 McCabe Street), as well as quasi industrial and commercial uses to the north at 140 Stirling Highway and to the South on Coventry Parade. Proposed Local Structure Plan (LSP) Detail

The intent of a local structure plan is to provide a broad planning framework for the coordinated provision and arrangement of future land use, subdivision and development. The proposed LSP is provided in two parts, in accordance with a framework prescribed by the WAPC under the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.


Page 50

Part One: Implementation section Part one is the implementation component of the structure plan, which contains the structure plan map and outlines the purpose and intent of the structure plan.

Part Two: Explanatory section Part Two is the explanatory component of the structure plan. This part contains the background and explanation of the structure plan, including design methodology, relevance and compliance with the planning framework at the state and local levels. It also contains supporting plans and maps, as well as the technical appendices. As shown on figure 1 above, the LSP proposes a predominantly Residential zoning over the site with an internal link road from Coventry Parade through to McCabe Street. An area of public open space is proposed on the eastern side of the internal link road and Mixed Use zones proposed over part of the 1929 heritage building fronting Stirling Highway, a section of land adjoining the area of public open space and the north-western corner of the area which comprises of an existing mix of commercial uses on Stirling Highway and a house on McCabe place. A residential density of R160 to achieve a plot ratio of 2:1 is proposed over the Residential and Mixed Use zones of the LSP. While no development applications have been lodged at this stage, the structure plan is expected to generate approximately 500 new dwellings. The applicant has indicated that residential development will likely be in the form of multi-storey apartments (multiple dwellings) and low scale townhouses (grouped dwellings). An area of public open space is proposed within the structure plan area. The public open space measures approximately 900 - 1000sqm and is located at the southern entry to the internal link road, accessible from Thompson Road and Coventry Parade (refer to figure 1). The structure plan incorporates a primarily one-way (northbound) internal road for pedestrian and vehicle movements. The internal link road is a requirement of LPS4 (refer to section of this report below on statutory and policy requirements - LPS4). The road will provide limited southbound movement for residents of the site. Right-turn movements from the internal link road onto McCabe Street will not be permitted. The paving treatment to the new road is proposed to be designed so that the portion abutting the POS (northbound only section) functions as a shared vehicle-pedestrian space, with the design intended to discourage through traffic. The northern section of the road will have a more conventional treatment. The building heights for the site are as per Local Planning Policy 3.11 - McCabe Street Area - Height of New Buildings (LPP3.11), as amended September 2015. LPP3.11 proposes base building heights of between 7 and 20 metres. Two height zones provided over the site include additional discretion to consider additional height up to 25m (indicative 7-8 storey) and 33m (indicative 10-11 storey building) where specific discretionary height criteria are met. Proposed Local Development Plan (LDP) Detail

The intent of a local development plan is to coordinate and assist in achieving better-built form outcomes by linking lot design to future development.


Page 51

Figure 2. Proposed Local Development Plan

The LDP comprises of a map and text showing the detail design requirements (refer to figure 2). The LDP map proposes vehicle access points and boundary setbacks. The LDP text provides provisions that propose varying several design elements of the Residential Design Codes including open space, visitor parking, site works, garages and carports and street setback. All other requirements are as per the Residential Design Codes (R-codes). The LDP requires the approval of the WAPC as it proposes amendments or replacements to deemed-to-comply provisions of the R-codes that cannot be varied under a LDP without the consent of the Commission. STATUTORY AND POLICY REQUIREMENTS The Planning and Development Regulations The new Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (Regulations 2015) have changed the procedure for receiving, advertising and assessing a local development plan and structure plan. Statutory timeframes also now apply. For example:

Advertising of the structure plan is for no more than 28 days and advertising a local development plan is for no less than 14 days; and

Following advertising the City has 60 days to consider submissions and provide a report to the Western Australian Planning Commission with a recommendation on the Structure Plan (unless the WAPC agrees to extend the 60 day period).


Page 52

The Regulations 2015 also explicitly make the Western Australian Planning Commission the determining body for all Structure Plans. As part of the Regulations 2015 the WAPC released the Structure Plan Framework (August 2015) and Framework for local development plans (August 2015) documents. These documents outline the content requirements for structure plans and local development plans. The proposed former Matilda Bay Brewery Site LSP and LDP were considered to meet these requirements regarding content and therefore were advertised for public comment prior to Council’s consideration. Following the public comment period the City requested an extension of time from the WAPC (additional 120 days) for preparation of its report to the WAPC on the LSP. The reason for the request was to allow for additional time for the City to work through issues raised during the submission period, and especially to discuss with Main Roads WA an approach to addressing the significant traffic-related considerations raised by the proposal. The WAPC agreed to extend the time period with the condition that a report is to be provided to the WAPC no later than 17 August 2016. Local Planning Scheme No. 4 Under the City’s LPS4 the LSP/LDP site is zoned Development Zone – Development Area 18 (DA18). Development areas have been identified in the City’s Scheme and set aside as areas that are capable of comprehensive and substantial development. Development Area 18 comprises of the Taskers site (9-11 McCabe Street), One Steel site (140 Stirling Highway), 15 McCabe Street and the former Matilda Bay Brewery site and smaller neighbouring lots. Schedule 11 provides the following in respect to the subject site in DA18:

DA 18

McCabe-Coventry Street North Fremantle and 130-138 Stirling Highway and 2-4 McCabe Street North Fremantle

1. Structure plan is to be adopted to guide subdivision, land use and development prior to approval of development applications.

2. Investigation of potential site contamination to the satisfaction of the DEC.

3. No development shall be permitted within the proposed road widening on Stirling Highway and McCabe Street as indicated in the proposed Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) Amendment 1210/41 or as in a finalised MRS Amendment.

4. Any structure plan for the land of No. 130 Stirling Highway (including Lot 5, 12, 218, 219, 220, 221, 314 and 253) and No. 2 – 4 McCabe Street (including Lot 9, 10 and 11), North Fremantle, is to include an internal link road connecting McCabe Street/McCabe Place to Coventry Parade/Thompson Road.

5. Development applications received prior to adoption of a structure plan, shall be assessed via Mixed Use provisions of the Scheme. Applications for any form of residential development and subdivision should be deferred until the structure plan is adopted in order that servicing, open space provision, environmental remediation and other issues are resolved.


Page 53

Local Planning Policy 3.11 The purpose of LPP3.11 is to identify limitations on the maximum height of new buildings that Council will apply in assessing structure plans and subsequent planning applications for the development of land in Development Area 18 in the McCabe Street, North Fremantle area. The policy is intended to help ensure that new buildings developed in the area do not adversely affect the visual amenity of the locality in general or the amenity of occupiers of nearby residential properties. In particular, the policy is intended to help safeguard important views from publicly accessible viewpoints towards and over the Indian Ocean and the Swan River and the setting of existing buildings and landscape features of cultural heritage significance. A review of the policy was carried out from April 2013 to final adoption by Council in August 2015. The purpose of the review was to allow for additional building height on a limited portion of the former Matilda Bay brewery site, on a discretionary basis, where view corridors were taken into account and development results in buildings that are well designed with environmentally sustainable design features.

Figure 3. LPP3.11 height of buildings as reviewed and adopted by Council 26 August 2015

Accordingly under the reviewed policy Council may approve, at its discretion, a maximum building height of 33 metres in zone H2 and 25m in zone H3 where the proposed development demonstrates that it complies with all of the following criteria:

(a) The development shall be designed and constructed in such a manner so as to achieve a rating of not less than 5 Star Green Star using the relevant Green Building Council of Australia Green Star rating tool or equivalent;

(b) The development must incorporate works to conserve the heritage significance of the heritage building;


Page 54

(c)The development must be of distinctive architecture befitting its location and exceptional design, meeting at the highest possible standard the principles of good design listed under clause 11.8.6.3 of LPS4;

(d) The development must not encroach upon view corridors as defined in the “McCabe Street Height Study” dated May 2008, prepared by Scenic Spectrums Pty Ltd on behalf of the City of Fremantle;

(e) The aggregate footprint of the portions of the development in height in zones H2 and H3 must not occupy more than 60% of the total combined land area of zone H2 and H3, and any individual portion of the development over 17 metres in height must not have a footprint greater than 20% of the total land area of zone H2 and H3;

(f) The development is to include non-residential ground floor uses that contribute to the function of the locality with a minimum commercial floor area of 500 square metres to serve the existing and future residential population living within walking distance of the precinct; and

g) Notwithstanding any overall public open space requirements the development is to include no less than 15 percent of the zone H2 and H3 area to be public open space. Council can consider locating the 15 percent public open space requirement outside of zone H2 and H3 zones where it can be demonstrated that this would overall result in an better public open space outcome for the development and the community than locating the space in zone H2 and H3.

h) A minimum of 15% of the total floor space proposed for residential use in the development shall be provided for affordable housing as defined in the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4.

Structure plan guidelines for the lots in Development Area 18 south of McCabe Street, North Fremantle The structure plan guidelines for the former Matilda Bay Brewery site were adopted by Council on 27 May 2015. The purpose of the guidelines (which are not a statutory planning instrument) is to “provide guidance on different aspects of design of future structure plan(s) for the lots in Development Area 18 south of McCabe Street, North Fremantle” (being the former Matilda Bay Brewery site and adjoining property). The guidelines identify the design objectives and desired outcomes for the following:

Connectivity and traffic management

Built form

Heritage and character

Housing and land use diversity

Public realm

Community engagement The applicant addressed all points of the guidelines in the LSP. This part of the LSP is provided in attachment 2. Green Plan 2020 The Green Plan 2020 was adopted by Council in December 2015 following close consultation with the Green Plan working group. The plan sets the strategy from now


Page 55

until 2020 and recognises the importance of Fremantle’s green spaces to current and future generations. It is aligned closely with the City’s One Planet Strategy and Strategic Community Plan 2015–2025. The plan sets goals to improve the City by:

aiming for every resident/worker to be within walking distance (400m) of a public green space

allowing the opportunity to apply nature play principles to new and existing Fremantle parks and their upgrades

working towards a target of 20% canopy cover for tree planting

developing strategy and policy to deliver a range of high quality landscaped environments capable of meeting the often competing needs placed on open spaces

improving habitat that supports biodiversity

ensuring water sensitive design

being responsive and adapting to climate change. The Green Plan generally identifies the McCabe Street area as being within 800m of public open space (refer to figure 4). Using the City’s mapping system most of the site is within around 400m to 600m walk of the river foreshore and ocean (using the pedestrian railway overpass) and under 400m to SEW park.

Figure 4. Map excerpt taken from Green plan 2020

The public open space proposed in the LSP is 900-1000 sqm, which is the size of a local park (<3000 sqm) under Liveable Neighbourhoods 2009. A current draft revised version of Liveable Neighbourhoods provides the following definition of local park:


Page 56

Local parks are designed to accommodate daily recreation for the local community. Local parks are primarily designed to include recreational and or nature space functions, but may include small sports functions such as basketball or tennis courts. These public open spaces are best located interspersed through a neighbourhood. State strategic planning direction Draft Perth and Peel @ 3.5 Million (Draft 2015) Perth and [email protected] essentially builds on Directions 2031 and beyond. It advocates the need to accommodate projected future population growth of up to 3.5 million by 2050 in a more sustainable urban growth pattern which limits further outward expansion on the urban fringe, achieves higher density residential overall (predominantly through more infill development) and creates a better connected network of accessible activity centres that fulfil employment, retail/entertainment and high density residential functions. The document contains a more developed version of the spatial plan included in Directions 2031 and more explicitly identifies land use distribution and key transport infrastructure required to accommodate projected growth. The broad figures outlined in the document for the predicted population of 3.5 million include an additional 800,000 new dwellings (380,000 in strategic infill positions) and 1.7 million jobs in total. Central Sub-regional Planning Framework (Draft 2015) As part of Perth and Peel @ 3.5 million four sub-regional frameworks are proposed - Central, North-West, North-East and South metropolitan Peel sub-regions. The frameworks are intended to provide more detailed guidance on how to manage the urban growth needed to accommodate an ultimate metropolitan area population of 3.5 million by the mid-21st century in a pattern which is denser, more contained and better connected – consistent with the vision already set out in Directions 2031 and beyond. The Central sub-regional framework encompasses the 19 local government areas closest to Perth CBD and the Swan River and includes the City of Fremantle (the most south-westerly local government area in the sub-region).

The plan sets out the content of the spatial plan in Perth and [email protected] in more detail, in particular identifying the major activity centres, industrial land allocations, key transport infrastructure including corridors and station precincts, and urban land that provides the main opportunities for future development.

The framework envisions a population of 1,200,000 in the Central sub-region by 2050. To accommodate this population the Central sub-region is to deliver 215,000 new dwellings. The proposed method of delivering these dwellings is by accommodating 75% (160,000 dwellings) in identified urban consolidation areas (activity centres, corridors and station precincts), with the balance (55,000 dwellings) delivered in the form of incremental infill in existing traditional suburban streets. The overall target is distributed across the 19 local governments in the sub-region, with the supply target for the City of Fremantle being 7,100 new dwellings. The central sub-region is also expected to provide for an additional 285,000 jobs by 2050.


Page 57

CONSULTATION The proposed LSP and LDP were advertised as per the Regulations 2015 from Saturday 23 January – 19 February 2016 (28 days) for public comment. Advertising of the proposed LSP consisted of:

Public advertising notice placed in the City of Fremantle’s “News Bites” in the Fremantle Herald local newspaper – 23 January 2016.

Letters of notification and inviting comment on the proposal (including where to find additional information), sent to landowners and occupiers within at least 100m of the proposed LSP area.

City of Fremantle website notification and an information package made publically available at the City’s Customer Service counter in the City of Fremantle administration building for the duration of consultation period. The website and information package including frequently asked questions, information sheet, the proposed LSP and LDP document, appendices and submission forms.

Letters of notification and inviting comment on the proposal sent to various service agencies and government organisations.

A letter of notification (electronic) and inviting comment sent to all precinct groups.

A community information session held Tuesday 2 February 2016 during the advertising period at the North Fremantle bowling club. The information session was held over one and a half hours in a ‘drop in’ style format, whereby anyone could come down and ask questions. The City’s planning officers attended and the applicant provided heritage, traffic, landscaping, planning and architect experts to help with any questions from the community.

Prior to advertising the LSP and LDP the applicant met with representatives from the North Fremantle Community Association. City officers attended the meeting as well as heritage, traffic, landscaping, architect experts provided by the applicant. The applicant explained the proposal to all parties present. At the completion of the public comment period the City had received 56 submissions on the LSP and LDP. One late submission was received after the public comment period. Table 1 below provides an overview of the categories of submitters and the level of support/objection. Table 2 provides a summary of concerns and comments raised in submissions. Table 1. Overview of submissions

Object/ Not support Support

Neutral with comment

No Comment/ No Objection TOTAL

Owner/Occupier/ Private Citizen

43 6

49

Local/State government department/ agency

1 1 4 2 8

TOTAL 44 7 4 2 57


Page 58

Table 2. Summary of concerns and comments raised in submissions Subject Selection of comments (summarised)

Public open space (POS)

Concern that the POS proposed is not large enough for the LSP area and should comprise of a land area the equivalent to 10% of the site.

Density Concern that the proposed R160 density is too high.

One submission suggested R80 would be more in keeping with high-density development in the area.

Height Concern that the heights of LPP3.11 are too high for the site.

Some submissions supported no more than three storey development

One submission supported no more than five storey development.

Several submissions questioned where height was to be taken from in the instance that the topography on the site differs.

Traffic and parking

Concern that south to north traffic movement is allowed.

Concern that with the increase in population the number of cars and traffic in the area would also increase traffic flow and safety issues existing and expected on Thompson Road and McCabe Street.

Concern that sufficient parking for residents would need to be provided on site.

Concern over the parking along Coventry Parade and Thompson Road as depicted in the indicative concept plan.

Some support for one-way access though the site so that the area does not become a ‘rate run’ north to south.

The Town of Mosman Park commented on the traffic modelling undertaken for the area – Refer to discussion on traffic under planning comment. Applicant’s response in Appendix 4.

Main Roads did not support the LSP in its current form – Refer to discussion on traffic under planning comment. Applicant’s response in Appendix 5.

Local Development plan

Concern over the additional Thompson Road and McCabe Street access points into the site.

Several submissions objected to the 4.0m setback as an average to the rear boundary of properties in the Rocky Bay area.

Some submissions questioned the reduced visitor parking proposed in the LDP.

Local Government advisory board

Several submissions requested the consideration of the LSP and LDP be put on hold until the Local Government advisory board make a decision on the proposal to amend the Town of Mosman Park's district boundary to include a portion of the suburb of North Fremantle currently located in the City of Fremantle.

State government departments and agencies

The State Heritage Office provided comment on the cultural heritage aspects of the site.

The Water Corporation and Telstra provided advice on the current capacity of water amenities in the area and telecommunication advice, respectively.

The submissions have been addressed individually in the schedule of submissions (refer to attachment 1). The main submission points are also considered in the Planning Comment section of this report and include:

Density

Building height:

Traffic and parking;

Setbacks;

Public open space; and

Local Government Advisory Board. PLANNING COMMENT The draft former Matilda Bay Brewery Site Local Structure Plan (LSP) and Local Development Plan (LDP) are the first such plans to be dealt with by the City since the Regulations 2015 came into effect. As a general comment not specifically related to the form of development proposed in these plans, dealing with them has highlighted what


Page 59

City officers consider are a number of operational shortcomings in the current Regulations as they apply to structure plans. The WAPC has recently announced a review of the Regulations and is inviting comments on the matter. Officers are currently preparing a submission on this matter and propose to include comments suggesting changes to the structure plan provisions. Officers have undertaken an assessment of the Matilda Bay LSP and LDP under the provisions of the Regulations 2015 as they currently stand, in the light of the submissions received. Having regard to the limited range of options available to the City in terms of the recommendation it may make to the WAPC (approval of the structure plan, refusal, or a requirement that the plan be modified and resubmitted to the Commission prior to approval), officers recommend the following:

The LSP be referred to the WAPC with a recommendation that the applicant be required to modify the plan to address specific issues (discussed below) and then resubmit the modified plan to the Commission for determination; and

The LDP be modified and resubmitted to the City for approval, prior to referral to the WAPC for approval due to proposed amendment/replacement of deemed-to-comply provisions of the R Codes.

The key planning considerations raised in submissions are addressed below. The recommended modifications are discussed where applicable. For further detail on the submissions please see the schedule of submissions in Attachment 1. Density Many of the submissions objected to the proposed density of R160 and resultant indicative yield of 500 dwellings on the site. However it is important to appreciate that the yield figure is only indicative and it is not the function of a structure plan to specify an exact number of dwellings. This will be done through the approval of development applications at a later stage of the planning process. Therefore requiring a change to dwelling yield in the LSP response to submissions would not be appropriate and in event would be somewhat arbitrary as whatever lower yield figure was selected would not be based on a certain development outcome for the site. The applicant has provided the following explanation for the proposed R160 density in the LSP:

In this instance the density coding assigned to the Residential Zone is of limited relevance given building heights within the LSP Area are determined by reference to LPP 3.11. In this regard, the provisions of the Residential Design Codes (‘R-Codes’) (Table 4) in relation to building height is not applicable. There is no difference in either the primary street or secondary street setback requirements or the maximum wall height requirements under Table 4 of the R-Codes between the density codings R80, R100 and R160. In this regard, the proposed R160 density coding does not provide for reduced setbacks or taller boundary walls. The main difference between the R80, R100 and R160 density codes is plot ratio. A plot ratio of 2.0 : 1.0 is desired for the LSP Area, consistent with the plot ratio approved for the One Steel and Tasker local structure plans to the immediate north of the LSP Area. At the time these two (2) local structure plans


Page 60

were adopted by the City and the WAPC, legislative provisions in relation to local structure plans permitted amendments to plot ratio and other provisions of the R-Codes and the Scheme via the local structure planning process. Recent legislative changes through the introduction of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 have removed the ability to vary plot ratio and other development control provisions at the local structure planning stage. In order to obtain the required plot ratio of 2.0 : 1.0, a density coding of R160 is required. The only benefit gained by the R160 density coding is in relation to maximum plot ratio. No additional benefits are gained in relation to matters such as building height, setbacks or boundary wall heights as these requirements are consistent in the R80, R100 and R160 density codes.

Plot ratio and height notwithstanding the R80, R100 and R160 density coding requirements of the R-codes are the same. As the building height requirements are provided in LPP3.11 the purpose of proposing a density coding of R160 is to gain a plot ratio of 2:1 under the R-codes. All other requirements are as per the LDP and R-codes. The purpose of providing a blanket high density over the site is to better respond to changing market conditions, servicing of the site and developing with the topography. The disadvantage of the high density is that while a range of housing types are possible the exact housing mix to be developed on site is not prescribed at this stage. Officers acknowledge that providing certainty on housing type(s), especially in established areas, is a concern of the surrounding residents. Development of this site however is proposed to be long term, staged and in accordance with the topography existing on site and the LPP3.11 height policy. Development applications received for the site will go through the Design Advisory Committee and likely another public comment period. Accordingly officers consider there is scope to allow for the high R-coding in the LSP as overall height and topography will be the limiting factor for development on site.

Additionally, officers consider the density proposed in the LSP to be in line with state and local strategic direction and documents. The City of Fremantle’s Strategic Plan 2015-20 and general approach to development areas in recent years and state strategic planning documents Directions 2031 and Perth and Peel 2050 all advocate for a diversity of housing types and support higher density areas in locations that are relatively well serviced in terms of access to services in local centres or the city centre, recreational amenities and public transport routes. As the LSP site is zoned development area and predominantly located within a 800m ‘Pedshed’ (or approximately 10 minute walkable catchment area) of the North Fremantle train station and close (within 400m) to bus public transport on Stirling Highway and areas of high amenity (e.g. beach and the Swan River), officers consider the site is within the parameters required to consider higher density development.


Page 61

Building height

Discretionary building heights in zone H2 and H3

Council undertook extensive consideration of the building heights on the former Matilda Bay Brewery site through the review on the McCabe Street height policy (LPP3.11). The heights proposed in the LSP are in accordance with LPP3.11 (as depicted on figure 3 above). Additional discretion can be considered up to 33m in building height in zone H2 and 25m in building height in zone H3 where specific criteria as provided under the policy is met (refer to discussion on LPP3.11 in background).

The discretionary height criteria comprises of seven individual criteria to gain the additional height. These criteria are not specifically referenced in part one or two of the LSP. The wording in the LSP under Part One – Implementation Section 5.3 building height – 5.3.1is as follows:

“Maximum building heights in the LSP area shall generally be in accordance with the City of Fremantle Local Planning Policy 3.11 – McCabe Street Area, North Fremantle – Height of New Buildings”

To ensure the discretionary criteria of LPP3.11 is met to achieve the additional discretionary building heights the City recommends the following modifications be applied to the LSP.

Recommended modifications

Insert the following into part one 5.3 building height – 5.3.1 under the existing wording:

At the development application stage development in zone H2 and H3 under the LPP3.11 is to demonstrate compliance with the discretionary height criteria.

Amend the structure plan map in part one of the LSP to include a legend and the height zones of LPP3.11.

Building height in zone E and F1

Seven submissions questioned the heights in front of the Taskers development asking if the height is taken from the “ bottom of the steep bank” on the site that runs up to McCabe street. Height in the northern area of the structure plan (Zones E and F1 to the front of 9-11 McCabe Street) was considered as part of the review on the LPP3.11. The building height limit under LPP3.11 for zones E and F1 is 20m and 14m respectively (refer to figure 3 above) from natural ground level. During the review on LPP3.11 concern was expressed that development in these zones on the sloping bank could potentially result in development that is approximately six (zone E) and four (zone F1) storeys in height to the front of development at McCabe Street. This was not the intent of LPP3.11. Accordingly the LPP3.11 includes a policy provision to ‘cap’ the maximum height of any new building, irrespective of the ground level it is constructed from, though an Australian Height Datum (AHD) level.


Page 62

McCabe Street has an approximate level of 30m Australian Height Datum (AHD) at the highest point in the policy area. The former Matilda Bay site generally has an AHD level of 16.8. If development were to occur at the 16.8 AHD level in the former Matilda Bay area it would likely present as one or two storeys in height to McCabe Street. Therefore the building height ‘cap’ in these zones is an AHD level of 37m AHD in zone E and 34m AHD in zone F1. The 37 AHD height limit in zone E would restrict any building within this zone to presenting approximately a two storey high elevation to McCabe Street and the 34 AHD height limit in area F1 would restrict any building within this zone to present approximately one storey (approximately 4.3 metres) to McCabe Street. Traffic The implications of traffic expected to be generated by the development yield (approximately 500 dwellings plus some non-residential land uses) indicated in the LSP, in addition to existing traffic in the area and future development of other nearby sites, has been the subject of detailed scrutiny through submissions and a number of technical assessments by the City’s Infrastructure Directorate, Main Roads WA, and consultants acting for the applicant and independently for the Town of Mosman Park. The City’s own traffic engineering officers have provided the following comments:

The McCabe Street and Stirling Highway intersection does not currently perform well.

The low performance on McCabe Street, in its current configuration, will be heightened by additional traffic from future development and general traffic increases in the area. Upgrade of the intersection will be required as development on McCabe Street is realised.

Currently a local distributor, there may be justification to reclassify McCabe Street to a District Distributor road as the traffic volumes in the area increase.

Managing the existing traffic volumes, safety and the cumulative impact and design implications of future development in the area is a priority of the City and requires input from Main Roads, Department of Transport (DoT), Public Transport Authority (PTA), Town of Mosman Park and other stakeholders.

Other key specific comments arising from submissions include -

Main Roads WA acknowledge in their submission that as development occurs on the former Matilda Bay Brewery site and adjoining lots, the lots at 136 Stirling Highway, North Fremantle will be locked into Stirling Highway as it’s only vehicle access to these sites. MainRoads consider it critical to the long term performance of the road network in this area that access to these lots is considered in coordination with development in the structure plan area.

As presented the LSP/LDP will increase traffic to the south of the structure plan area. Thompson Road south bound traffic during and in morning peak will result in delays for right turning vehicles as well as generally longer queues on Craig Street. The Alfred Road & Stirling Highway intersection would also see increased use.

The proposed development yield from the LSP/LDP will significantly degrade performance at the McCabe St/Stirling Hwy intersection. As a result this intersection will require an upgrade.

The proposed level of parking within the LSP visitor bays is low, with little justification for the reduction of visitor parking bays.


Page 63

These matters, and other transport-related issues, are set out in more detail in Attachments 1, 4 and 5. At the close of the submission period the City met with Main Roads WA on several occasions to discuss these issues, especially in relation to the McCabe Street and Stirling Highway road junction. Main Roads WA (MRWA) developed an ‘ultimate road alignment plan’ for the area. The plan takes into account the current and projected poor performance on McCabe Street and at the intersection of McCabe Street and Stirling Highway. The MRWA plan incorporates the following:

Widening both McCabe Street and Stirling Highway;

Extending the right turn slip lane on Stirling Highway northbound to turn into McCabe Street;

Extending the right turn pocket on McCabe Street to turn into Stirling Highway;

An additional left turn into McCabe Street from Stirling Highway southbound;

Additional turn controls and restrictions on Coventry Parade; and

Left turn only out of McCabe Place into McCabe Street. The plan is a conceptual engineering-focused (i.e. no urban design consideration) approach to mitigating traffic congestion and road safety issues in the locality which would otherwise be exacerbated by redevelopment of the Matilda Bay site as envisaged under the LSP. The plan has no formal status nor is it linked to confirmed budget provision by the State of WA for road upgrades and/or public transport investment in the locality. Whilst the MRWA plan provides a basis for addressing key traffic congestion and safety issues, substantial further consultation and input from other stakeholders is required to develop a package of works and funding arrangements that would equitably share responsibility for the implementation of transport infrastructure upgrades between public authorities and private developers in a manner proportionate to the impact caused by new development including the Matilda Bay site relative to the impact of existing traffic volumes. It will not be possible to resolve these matters before the deadline for provision of the City’s report on the LSP to the WAPC. Accordingly officers consider the WAPC should be recommended to require the applicant to modify the LSP prior to its determination to include within the Part One (Implementation) section of the plan clear proposals for a mechanism to secure upgrades to road and related infrastructure (including pedestrian, cycle and public transport facilities), including funding arrangements, linked to staging of implementation of development under the LSP. The Planning Regulations 2015 and the associated WAPC Structure Plan Framework document identify staging, including its relationship to triggers such as provision of infrastructure and road construction/upgrades, as matters which structure plans should address. The applicant should be encouraged to develop this modified section of the LSP in consultation with the City of Fremantle, the Town of Mosman Park, MRWA and the PTA. A recommendation to this effect is included in the overall officer’s recommendation at the end of this item. Related to the above modification to the Staging section (section 4) of Part One of the LSP, the following modifications to section 5 dealing with Subdivision and Development Requirements are also recommended:


Page 64

Under 5.5 - Internal Link Road insert new part 5.3.3 that states:

5.5.3 The lot at 136 Stirling Highway, North Fremantle shall be provided the opportunity to gain access from the internal link road.

Prior to development the following design details are to be provided to the City:

The internal link road (McCabe Place to Thompson Road/Coventry Parade), street parking and other access points into the site;

Traffic management for the duration of the construction works with a view to retaining all work related obstructions, including fences and vehicles, within the site;

The pedestrian access to both McCabe St and Coventry Parade (footpath leading to existing network) including width and profile; and

Under part 5.6 Road Widening - Stirling Highway amend 5.6.1 to read:

5.6.1 The LSP Area is subject to road widening as agreed by the City, Main Roads and the PTA along Stirling Highway, McCabe Street and Coventry Parade.

It is also recommended that the LDP be modified to address other traffic and parking related issues as follows: Modifications to LDP required Delete –

The four access points on McCabe Street (excluding McCabe Place) and one access point on Thompson Road from the map and text (Vehicle access 11, 12 and 29); and

The variation to the visitor parking requirements (Parking 10, 25, 26 and 27) Parking The LSP indicates that on-site parking for residents and commercial tenants will likely be provided in underground parking areas that will be suitably screened from the street and other public places to ensure an appropriate level of amenity. On-street parking is proposed within the internal access road and south along Thompson Road. Further details in relation to on-site and off-site parking will be provided at the development application stage. The City’s LPS4 provides the parking requirements for commercial development on site and the Residential Design Codes (R-codes) provides the requirements for each dwelling. For example, every dwelling is required to provide at least one car parking space and more if the dwelling has 3 or more bedrooms. Additionally the R-codes require visitor parking for multiple dwellings and large grouped dwelling developments. The LDP proposes the following parking variations to the R-codes on-site parking requirements:

Grouped dwelling parking requirements the same as the multiple dwelling requirements;

The visitor parking for grouped and multiple dwellings be reduced from one visitor bay per four dwellings to one visitor bay per 10 dwellings; and


Page 65

One bicycle space provided for every 7.5 dwellings for residents and one bicycle space to each 20 dwellings for visitors, instead of the R-Code deemed-to-comply requirement of one space to each three dwellings for residents and one space to each 10 dwellings for visitors.

The applicant has provided the following justification for these variations:

The subject site is located 800m from the North Fremantle Train Station (high frequency rail route) and 150m from the nearest bus stop which facilitates four regular bus routes. The Residential Design Codes (‘R-Codes’) defines a ‘high frequency route’ as “a public transport route with timed stops that runs a service at least every 15 minutes during week day peak periods (7 to 9am and 5 to 7pm)”. Both the North Fremantle Train Station and the bus stop to the south of the site satisfy this definition. Given the site is well located with strong connections to high frequency public transport routes, it is considered visitors to the site would take advantage of public transport services rather than relying on private modes of transport. Concept plans prepared by the proponent to date, envisage the following number of on-site parking spaces will be provided for each dwelling: - Small Dwelling: 1 car bay

- Medium Dwelling: 2 car bays

- Large Dwelling: 3 car bays

The concept plans envisage to development will provide for approximately 50 small dwellings, 350 medium dwellings and 100 large dwellings which will require 513 car bays to satisfy the “Deemed-to-Comply” requirements of the R-Codes. The proponent’s future Development Application will be seeking approval to provide 1,050 on-site car parking bays for the estimated 500 dwellings, which exceeds the “Deemed-to-Comply” requirements of the R-Codes by 537 bays. It is considered reasonable to assume a large number of the extra car bays will be used by the occupiers of the dwellings for visitor car parking. It is noted the preliminary concept plans also identify a total of 50 on-site car parking bays being provided. Further opportunities will be explored at the Development Application stage to provide for on-street vehicle parking, where appropriate, which may be used by visitors to the site. The Indicative Concept Plan shows a number of bays within the Thompson Road reserve however, there may be further opportunities to provide for visitor car parking bays along Coventry Parade, similar to the existing arrangement on-site. On this basis, it is considered the reduced visitor car parking ratio satisfies the “design principles” of the R-Codes and therefore may be supported.


Page 66

The Town of Mosman Park’s submission suggests it is unlikely visitors to the site will be using public transport. Officers consider any merit-based assessment of the justification for a possible variation to the parking/bicycle requirements is better dealt with at the development application stage when there is more information available and an assessment of what is proposed on site can be undertaken. Accordingly officers recommend that the reduced vehicle, visitor and bicycle parking provisions currently proposed in the LDP be deleted. Refer to attachment 3 for officer’s comments on the LDP. In regards to on-street vehicle parking, officers of the City’s Infrastructure directorate have indicated that they will not support the visitor parking on street on Thompson Road as shown in the indicative concept plan. The internal road has been shown to have the capacity to provide for some suitably designed on-street parking facilities. Accordingly a part of the recommendation to the WAPC on the structure plan is that the City’s further approval will be required for the design and construction of the internal road and any on street parking as a result of development on the site. Setback to existing houses The boundary and street setbacks are provided in the LDP (refer to figure 2). The main concerns raised in relation to setbacks in the submissions were:

the impact of the four metre average setback proposed along the boundary to the rear boundary of properties in the Rocky Bay.

the nil setback to Coventry Parade would not allow for footpath access along Coventry Parade

Officers agree changes to the setbacks proposed in the LDP are required to address these issues prior to approval of the LDP. These recommended changes are provided in Table 3 below. Table 3. Excerpt from applicant and CoF officer comments on the LDP (refer to attachment 3 for full table)

LDP Provision

Applicant comment CoF officer comments Recommended action

Street Setback

19. New buildings fronting Coventry Parade, the internal link road and the area of public open space as shown on the LSP may be constructed to the property boundary.

The intent of this provision is to create a hard edge urban landscape along Coventry Parade, the internal link road (McCabe Place) and the area of public open space. This design outcome maximises opportunities for passive surveillance over the public realm and provides for active street frontages which encourage pedestrian activity.

A nil setback to Coventry parade is not supported from an urban design perspective. New buildings on Coventry Parade shall be setback in line with the existing heritage building.

Delete “Coventry Parade”.

Insert new wording after “boundary.”, “New buildings fronting Coventry Parade to be setback in line with the existing former Matilda Bay Brewery building setback on Coventry Parade.”

Amend LDP map accordingly.


Page 67

Lot Boundary Setbacks

20. Development is to comply with the minimum lot boundary setbacks shown on the LDP.

The setbacks provided under the LDP have been based on preliminary concept plans prepared by the architect for the site.

The intention is to create a hard edge urban landscape to both Coventry Parade and McCabe Place. It is therefore considered appropriate to provide for nil setbacks at these interfaces.

The 4m average setback line along the south-east boundary is based on preliminary concept plans prepared for the site. The 4m average setback is considered appropriate as initial concept planning for this edge indicates a row of two to three storey townhouses along this boundary. It is considered the 4m average setback as shown on the LDP provides a degree of certainty as to how the development will unfold, noting that balconies and privacy setback provisions may require greater setbacks than those provided for under the LDP.

An average 4.0m setback from existing houses in the Rocky Bay area is not supported. This boundary direct abuts existing houses and accordingly is the most sensitive interface. A prescribed setback with no averaging allowed would provide more certainty to these residents on the outcome of development on site and assist officer in the assessment of development applications. It is therefore recommended that the setback of 4m be retained but the provision for averaging be deleted.

Delete the word ‘average’ and replace with ‘minimum’ on the setback of 4.0m depicted with a dashed orange line on the LDP map legend

Public open space (POS) The proposed public open space (POS) provided in the LSP is located at the southern entry to the internal link road through the site and measures approximately 900 - 1000sqm. The issues raised in the submissions on POS were generally around the size, location and use of the space. The use of the proposed POS in the LSP is general-purpose passive recreation park to service residents of the new development and surrounding area. The POS is accessible from Thompson Road, Coventry Parade and McCabe Place. The location of the proposed POS will further enhance the City’s park network and, along with the green spine, will improve green linkages between the City’s green places in the area. The proposed POS location and use are considered to satisfy the objectives of the Green Plan 2020 and therefore are supported by officers.


Page 68

Officers however consider the size of the proposed POS should be improved. The LSP site area is approximately 3.2ha. The applicant’s total landholdings come to approximately 2.78ha. The provision of 10% of the gross subdivisible site area as on-site POS is the standard planning requirement of the WAPC for a structure plan where the structure plan would result in subdivision of five lots or more. As the applicant proposes building out the site in a staged multiple dwelling (strata title) development they are of the view that the POS requirement is not applicable to the LSP. Similarly, POS was not provided in the approved structure plans for the One Steel (140 Stirling Highway) and 9-11 McCabe Street (Taskers) for the same reason. The Minim Cove subdivision provided 10% as part of the combined Rocky Bay and Mosman Park subdivision. While this interpretation of the POS requirements may technically be correct it will be up to the WAPC to determine whether to impose a specific percentage POS requirement. Officers consider the WAPC should be recommended to require the structure plan to be modified to include a POS requirement of no less than 2000 sqm for the following reasons:

Service the development - Public open space will improve the amenity of the area for the residents on the site and immediately surrounding the site. The site is effectively likely to produce an additional 500 dwellings resulting in an estimated 1,015 people. These are higher development yields than the approved One Steel structure plan and total Taskers approved developments opposite the site. POS in the structure plan area will therefore provide for the site’s residents and surrounding residents;

Further enhance green linkages;

Allow for additional height - the discretionary height criteria of LPP3.11 required in order to gain additional height requires a proportion of POS to be provided;

More practical management - The City’s Parks department provided advice indicating that parks in the Cty’s management that are smaller than 1000 sqm can be impractical in terms to maintain and manage; and

This size would be closer to the 10% Public Open Space requirement the site would otherwise have to provide.

Local Government Advisory Board Several submissions requested that consideration of the LSP and LDP be put on hold until the Minister for Local Government makes a decision on the proposal to amend the Town of Mosman Park's district boundary to include a portion of the suburb of North Fremantle currently located in the City of Fremantle. The Local Government Advisory Board has now presented its report to the Minister and recommends the relatively minor boundary changes advocated by the City of Fremantle in its submission to the Advisory Board. These changes do not affect the subject site. The timeframe for the Minister’s final consideration on this matter is unclear. Officers consider it would not be in the interests of orderly and proper planning to leave a state of uncertainty over the content and scope of the proposed local structure plan and development plan on the former Matilda Bay Brewery site. Additionally, the request to change boundaries is considered under the Local Government Act 1995 and the LSP is proposed under the Planning and Development


Page 69

Act 2005 with applicable statutory timeframes allocated under the Regulations 2015. Officers recommend that WAPC do not defer the decision on the basis of matters dealt with under another act (Local Government Act 1995). CONCLUSION The LSP and LDP are considered to generally satisfy the requirements of the Regulations for the preparation of these document types. The LSP and LDP propose to facilitate Mixed Use and residential development types and with a supporting POS provision on the former Matilda Bay Brewery Site and adjoining lots. Officers consider the development outcomes from the LSP would be broadly consistent with strategic planning policy objectives of State Government and also meet a number of the Council’s own Strategic Plan objectives, notably in respect of providing greater diversity in housing supply to meet changing population needs. Officers consider the built form of development on this site envisaged under the LSP, although different from most established development in North Fremantle, would be appropriate for the site. However, given the significant traffic generation implications directly arising from the development yield proposed under the LSP, it would only be acceptable to approve the LSP if it is modified to provide a clear implementation process to deal with transport infrastructure upgrades required to mitigate the impacts of the proposed development. It is therefore recommended the proposed LSP and LDP be required to be modified prior to approval to address the transport and other matters discussed in the Planning Comment section above. If Council supports the officer’s recommendations these will form the recommendation the City provides to the WAPC in accordance with the requirements of the Planning Regulations 2015. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

That Council: 1. Note the submissions received as detailed in the Officer’s report and

Attachment 1;

2. Pursuant to Regulation 20 of the Deemed Provisions in Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, submit this report and attachments to the Western Australian Planning Commission with a recommendation that the Commission require the applicant make the following modifications to the former Matilda Bay Brewery Site Local Structure Plan and resubmit the modified plan to the Commission for determination:

I. Insert the following into Part One (Implementation Section)

a) Clear proposals within item 4 (Staging) for a mechanism to secure upgrades to road and related infrastructure (including pedestrian, cycle and public transport facilities), including funding arrangements, linked to staging of implementation of development under the LSP.


Page 70

b) 5.3 Building height – 5.3.1 under the existing wording:

At the development application stage development in zone H2 and H3 under the LPP3.11 is to demonstrate compliance with the discretionary height criteria.

c) 5.5 - Internal Link Road insert new part 5.5.3:

5.5.3 The lot at 136 Stirling Highway, North Fremantle shall be provided the opportunity to gain access from the internal link road.

Prior to development the following design details are to be provided to the City: The internal link road (McCabe Place to Thompson Road/Coventry Parade), street parking and other access points into the site; Traffic management for the duration of the construction works with a view to retaining all work related obstructions, including fences and vehicles, within the site; The pedestrian access to both McCabe St and Coventry Parade (footpath leading to existing network) including width and profile.

d) 5.6 Road Widening - Stirling Highway amend 5.6.1 to read:

5.6.1 The LSP Area is subject to road widening as agreed by the City of Fremantle, Main Roads WA and the PTA along Stirling Highway, McCabe Street and Coventry Parade.

II. Amend the structure plan map in Part One of the LSP to include:

a) A legend

b) The height zones of LPP3.11

c) A Public Open Space area of no less than 2000 sqm

III. Update Table of Contents accordingly

3. Pursuant to Regulation 52(1) of the Deemed Provisions in Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, require the applicant to modify the former Matilda Bay Brewery Site Local Development Plan as specified below and then resubmit the modified plan to the City of Fremantle for approval.


Page 71

I. Amend the Local Development Plan Text as follows:

a) Delete the heading “PART 5: DESIGN ELEMENTS FOR ALL SINGLE HOUSE(S) AND GROUPED DWELLINGS; AND MULTIPLE DWELLINGS IN AREAS CODED LESS THAN R40”

b) Delete provisions 5-18 and 21, 23-37, 28, 29 and 32 c) Modify the following headings:

”PART 6: DESIGN ELEMENTS FOR MULTIPLE DWELLINGS IN AREAS CODED R40 OR GREATER; WITHIN MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT AND ACTIVITY CENTRES “ to read “Residential Design Code – Design Elements”

“Street Setback (Element 6.1.3)” to read “Street Setback (Element 5.1.2C.1i and 6.1.3 C3.1)

“Lot Boundary Setbacks (Element 6.1.4)” to read “Lot Boundary Setbacks (Element 5.1.3 C3.1i and 6.1.4 C4.2)”

“Design of Car Parking Spaces (Element 6.3.4)” to read “Design of Car Parking Spaces (Element 6.3.4C4.2)

“Stormwater Management (Element 6.3.8)” to read “Stormwater Management (Element 5.3.9 and 6.3.8)

d) Modify the following provisions

19. Delete the words “Coventry Parade”. Insert new wording after “boundary.”, “New buildings fronting Coventry Parade to be setback in line with the existing former Matilda Bay Brewery building setback on Coventry Parade.”

22. Delete the second note

34. Reword to read: “A lower minimum of 10% of dwellings within the LDP area to be 1 bedroom can be considered”

e) Renumber provisions accordingly

II. Amend the Local Development Plan Map as follows:

a) Delete the four additional vehicle access point on McCabe Street and one vehicle access point on Thompson Road;

b) Delete the Nil street setbacks permitted line from Coventry Parade;

c) Delete the word ‘average’ and replace with ‘minimum’ on the setback of 4.0m depicted with a dashed orange line on the LDP map legend

4. After receipt of and approval by the City of Fremantle of the former Matilda Bay

Brewery Site Local Development Plan as modified in accordance with recommendation 3 above, forward the plan to the Western Australian Planning


Page 72

Commission for endorsement in accordance with the requirements of 7.3.2 of the Residential Design Codes.

5. Advise the applicant and the Western Australian Planning Commission that modifications to the Local Structure Plan to address a mechanism to secure upgrades to road and related infrastructure (including pedestrian, cycle and public transport facilities) as referred to in recommendation 2 (I) a) above should be prepared in consultation with the City of Fremantle, Main Roads WA, the PTA and the Town of Mosman Park.


Page 73

PC1607-8 DRAFT LOCAL PLANNING POLICY LPP 2.20 - DISCRETION TO VARY LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME SITE OR DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR HERITAGE PURPOSES

ECM Reference: 117/062 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Responsible Officer: Manager Strategic Planning Actioning Officer: Manager Strategic Planning Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: Council Attachments: Draft Local Planning Policy 2.20

Previous item PC1604-13 Submissions received during consultation period

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

On 27 April 2016, Council endorsed consultation on the draft local planning policy 2.20 (Discretion to vary local planning scheme site or development requirements for heritage purposes). The purpose of this item is to report on the submissions received during the consultation period, and to recommend that Council approves the draft local planning policy with minor modification to the wording. BACKGROUND

On 19 October 2015 the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (the Regulations) came into effect. The Regulations include a set of Deemed Provisions which are automatically ‘read into’ every local planning scheme in Western Australia. One provision of the Deemed Provisions – clause 12 – provides a discretionary power to a local government to vary any site or development standards in its scheme in order to facilitate the conservation of a place included on the heritage list or to preserve or enhance a heritage area. A report on the implementation of the Regulations (item PSC1511-9) was presented to Council on 25 November 2015. As part of its resolution relating to this item Council resolved that officers should prepare a draft local planning policy to provide guidance on the use of clause 12 of the Deemed Provisions in the assessment and determination of development applications. The purpose of the local planning policy is to provide a degree of certainty, consistency and transparency to decision-makers, developers and the community regarding the use of the discretionary power provided to the local government under the Deemed Provisions. A report relating to guiding principles for the local planning policy (item PC1602-6) was endorsed by Council on 24 February 2016. The draft local planning policy which incorporated these principles was then presented to Council on 27 April 2016 to initiate public consultation on the policy (item PC1604-13 – see Attachment 1).


Page 74

CONSULTATION

Consultation on the proposed draft local planning policy was carried out in accordance with Clause 4 of the Deemed Provisions of the Regulations and the City’s Local Planning Policy 1.3. Advertising occurred between 14 May 2016 and 6 June 2016 (a total of 23 days) and consisted of the following notices:

Public advertising notices in the local newspaper – 14 & 21 May 2016;

Notice being placed on the City of Fremantle website for the duration of consultation period;

Notification of the amendment in the public area of City of Fremantle administration building; and

Letters of notification and inviting comment on the draft local planning policy to specific stakeholder groups.

As proposed in the previous item presented to Council (PC1604-13) on 27 April 2016, the draft local planning policy was forwarded to specific stakeholders due to the subject matter of the policy. This included the State Heritage Office and Heritage Council, Urban Design Institute of Australia, Planning Institute of Australia, Western Australia Local Government Association and Fremantle Society (as well as all other precinct groups). A total of 2 submissions were received at the close of the consultation period. The submissions received were from the State Heritage Office (SHO) and the North Fremantle Precinct Group. The two submissions showed clear support, with SHO providing additional comments and feedback. The following suggestions were made by the SHO:

Further information on those elements of the local planning scheme that fall under the scope of clause 12 of the Deemed Provisions. While it may be clear and unambiguous to planners what is included in the 'site and development requirements' it may be less so to owners. This information could either be provided within the policy or in an associated guide.

Subclause 10(2) of the Deemed Provisions notes that a heritage agreement in accordance with subclause 10(1) is the only form of legal agreement that is acceptable in relation to heritage. It may therefore be relevant to reflect this in part 7 of the policy, which discusses the potential for such an agreement to be conditioned in an approval.

Further discussion of these suggestions is outlined in the following Planning Comment section of this report. The submissions received are attached to this report as attachment 3. PLANNING COMMENT

As stated in the Background section of this report, the draft local planning policy has been based on the principles previously endorsed by Council. The full wording of the draft local planning policy is set out in the Officers Recommendation section below, which includes additional wording as per the modification outlined in this section of the item.


Page 75

The main elements of the policy were considered to be well received with the submissions received showing clear support for the policy with only two minor changes suggested in one of the submissions. There are discussed below. Site and Development Requirements The suggestion by SHO to include reference to what matters might fall within the scope of site and development requirements (as referred to in clause 12 of the Deemed Provisions) is considered helpful. However under the scheme each individual site could have a number of site requirements or development requirements which can significantly vary from one site to another. Furthermore, site or development requirements can be changed (in the form of a scheme amendment) and therefore the specific site and development requirements can vary between sites but also vary over time. Therefore it would not be appropriate to attempt to explicitly list all the site and development requirements within the Scheme. It is therefore recommended that the following general wording be added to the Purpose section of the policy: Site and Development requirements can include, but are not limited to, height, setbacks, plot ratio, provision of car parking, etc. These site and development requirements will vary depending upon the site and the development being proposed. Heritage Agreements The second comment raised by SHO related to the inclusion of further details of heritage agreements. Officers have not included reference to heritage agreements within the policy as a method of ensuring heritage outcomes are achieved because heritage agreements are exclusively used for state listed heritage buildings only. Heritage agreements, while discussed in Clause 10 of the Deemed Provisions, are specifically administered through the Heritage of Western Australia Act and are not exclusively designed for enforcing planning controls. The draft local planning policy refers to the possible use of legal agreements required through a condition of planning approval granted under the Scheme and Planning and Development Act as outlined in Clause 7 of the policy. This reference is intended to draw attention to the City’s ability to impose conditions on a development approval as a mechanism to ensure that when the development is undertaken the heritage outcomes associated with the discretionary approval of the development are achieved in an enforceable way. This is a different statutory context to the one referred to by the SHO in its reference to heritage agreements. Therefore officers do not consider it would be appropriate to include reference to heritage agreements within the policy in the manner suggested by the SHO. CONCLUSION Draft Local Planning Policy 2.20 has been prepared to help guide decision-makers, developers and the community regarding the use of the discretionary power provided to the local government under the Deemed Provisions.


Page 76

The City received two submissions during the consultation period supporting the policy, with one submission suggesting that further clarification in some instances was needed. City officers have considered these submissions and recommend one minor amendment to the wording of provisions within the policy as a result. It is recommended the draft local planning policy be adopted with one minor modification, to provide additional reference to what elements could be included in the ‘site and development’ requirements of the Scheme in the Purpose section of the policy. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

That Council resolves to adopt local planning policy LPP 2.20 – Discretion to vary Local Planning Scheme site or development requirements for heritage purposes, with one modification, as set out below:

CITY OF FREMANTLE

LOCAL PLANNING POLICY 2.20

DISCRETION TO VARY LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME SITE OR DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR HERITAGE PURPOSES

ADOPTION DATE: ??/??/2016 AUTHORITY: LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME NO.4 STATUTORY BACKGROUND Under the provisions of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (the Regulations), the Deemed Provisions contained in Schedule 2 of the Regulations are applicable to all local planning schemes, whether or not they are incorporated into the local planning scheme text. Accordingly these provisions are applicable to the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (the Scheme). Clause 12 of the Deemed Provisions states:

(1) The local government may vary any site or development requirement specified in

this Scheme to –

(a) facilitate the built heritage conservation of a place entered in the register of

Places under the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 or entered in the

heritage list; or

(b) enhance or preserve heritage values in a heritage area.

(2) A variation under sub-clause (1) may be unconditional or subject to any conditions the local government considers appropriate.

(3) If the local government is of the opinion that the variation of site or development

requirements is likely to affect any owners or occupiers in the general locality of the place or the heritage area the local government must –


Page 77

(a) consult the affected parties by following one or more of the provisions for advertising uses under clause 64; and

(b) have regard to any views expressed prior to making its determination to vary the site or development requirements under this clause.

PURPOSE The purpose of this policy is to provide guidance on the submission, assessment and determination of applications for development approval in cases where the decision-making authority may consider exercising its discretionary power under clause 12 of the Deemed Provisions in Schedule 2 of the Regulations to vary any site or development requirement specified in the Scheme in order to achieve one or more the heritage outcomes stated in clause 12(1)(a) or (b). Site and Development requirements can include, but are not limited to, height, setbacks, plot ratio, provision of car parking, etc. These site and development requirements will vary depending upon the site and the development being proposed. POLICY

1. Any development application which, in order to be approved, requires the exercise of discretion by the decision-maker under clause 12 of the Deemed Provisions to vary any Scheme site or development requirement must include information which clearly demonstrates that an outcome of the proposed variation(s) will be to either:

a. facilitate the built heritage conservation of a heritage listed place; or b. enhance or preserve heritage values in a heritage area.

2. The information referred to in (1) above must be provided by the applicant in the form of

a written Statement of Justification. The Statement of Justification must provide a clear rationale for the design approach adopted for the proposed development which requires the variation, and also explain how it achieves one of the outcomes referred to in (1).

3. The Statement of Justification should address the following issues: (a) the physical relationship (including the nature and extent of the relationship)

between the elements of the proposed development which require the variation and one of the heritage outcomes referred to in (1);

(b) whether and, if so, how the heritage outcomes achieved through the variations make a contribution to the public realm (e.g. streetscape);

(c) whether the extent of the variation (e.g. additional building height) is the minimum necessary to achieve the heritage outcome;

(d) the proportionality between the nature and extent of the variation sought and the heritage values and level of the heritage significance of the place or area;

(e) the spatial relationship (including degree of proximity) between the place or heritage area (as the case may be) and the development in respect of which a variation is sought.

The Statement of Justification may also address other issues which the applicant wishes the decision maker to consider.

4. The Statement of Justification may include drawings, photographs or other relevant

information in support of the written statement. The local government may request the applicant to provide additional information prior to determination of the application if it does not consider sufficient information has been provided in the initial Statement of Justification submitted with the application to enable the decision-making authority to


Page 78

make a properly informed judgement regarding whether the proposed development will enable one or both of the heritage outcomes specified in clause 12(1)(a) and (b) of the Deemed Provisions to be achieved.

5. Development applications which seek to justify variations to Scheme site or development requirements solely on the basis that financial benefit derived from the development will be used to fund heritage works will not be supported.

6. The matters set out in 3(a) to (3)(e) above will be considered by the decision making

authority in assessing whether the relationship between a development proposal and the outcomes for a heritage place or area that would result from the proposed development, if it was approved, justify the exercise of discretion to vary any Scheme site or development requirement under the provisions of clause 12 of the Deemed Provisions.

7. When an application for development approval is granted on the basis of the exercise of

discretion to vary Scheme site or development requirements under clause 12 of the Deemed Provisions, the decision-making authority may impose conditions on the approval. Such conditions may include a requirement for a legal agreement between the local government and the owner of the land to which the approval relates, to ensure that the heritage outcome associated with the approved development is achieved when the development is undertaken. The requirements of any condition will depend upon the nature of the development the subject of the approval granted, and its relationship with the heritage outcome associated with the development.


Page 79

CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS

Nil.


Page 80

SUMMARY GUIDE TO CITIZEN PARTICIPATION & CONSULTATION

The Council adopted a Community Engagement Policy in December 2010 to give effect to its commitment to involving citizens in its decision-making processes. The City values community engagement and recognises the benefits that can flow to the quality of decision-making and the level of community satisfaction. Effective community engagement requires total clarity so that Elected Members, Council officers and citizens fully understand their respective rights and responsibilities as well as the limits of their involvement in relation to any decision to be made by the City.

How consultative processes work at the City of Fremantle

The City’s decision makers 1. The Council, comprised of Elected Members, makes policy, budgetary and key strategic decisions while the CEO, sometimes via on-delegation to other City officers, makes operational decisions.

Various participation opportunities 2. The City provides opportunities for participation in the decision-making process by citizens via itscouncil appointed working groups, its community precinct system, and targeted community engagement processes in relation to specific issues or decisions.

Objective processes also used 3. The City also seeks to understand the needs and views of the community via scientific and objective processes such as its bi-ennial community survey.

All decisions are made by Council or the CEO

4. These opportunities afforded to citizens to participate in the decision-making process do not include the capacity to make the decision. Decisions are ultimately always made by Council or the CEO (or his/her delegated nominee).

Precinct focus is primarily local, but also city-wide

5. The community precinct system establishes units of geographic community of interest, but provides for input in relation to individual geographic areas as well as on city-wide issues.

All input is of equal value 6. No source of advice or input is more valuable or given more weight by the decision-makers than any other. The relevance and rationality of the advice counts in influencing the views of decision-makers.

Decisions will not necessarily reflect the majority view received

7. Local Government in WA is a representative democracy. Elected Members and the CEO are charged under the Local Government Act with the responsibility to make decisions based on fact and the merits of the issue without fear or favour and are accountable for their actions and decisions under law. Elected Members are accountable to the people via periodic elections. As it is a representative democracy, decisions may not be made in favour of the majority view expressed via consultative processes. Decisions must also be made in accordance with any statute that applies or within the parameters of budgetary considerations. All consultations will clearly outline from the outset any constraints or limitations associated with the issue.


Page 81


Decisions made for the overall good of Fremantle

8. The Local Government Act requires decision-makers to make decisions in the interests of “the good government of the district”. This means that decision-makers must exercise their judgment about the best interests of Fremantle as a whole as well as about the interests of the immediately affected neighbourhood. This responsibility from time to time puts decision-makers at odds with the expressed views of citizens from the local neighbourhood who may understandably take a narrower view of considerations at hand.

Diversity of view on most issues 9. The City is wary of claiming to speak for the ‘community’ and wary of those who claim to do so. The City recognises how difficult it is to understand what such a diverse community with such a variety of stakeholders thinks about an issue. The City recognises that, on most significant issues, diverse views exist that need to be respected and taken into account by the decision-makers.

City officers must be impartial 10. City officers are charged with the responsibility of being objective, non-political and unbiased. It is the responsibility of the management of the City to ensure that this is the case. It is also recognised that City officers can find themselves unfairly accused of bias or incompetence by protagonists on certain issues and in these cases it is the responsibility of the City’s management to defend those City officers.

City officers must follow policy and procedures

11. The City’s community engagement policy identifies nine principles that apply to all community engagement processes, including a commitment to be clear, transparent, responsive , inclusive, accountable andtimely. City officers are responsible for ensuring that the policy and any other relevant procedure is fully complied with so that citizens are not deprived of their rights to be heard.

Community engagement processes have cut-off dates that will be adhered to.

12. As City officers have the responsibility to provide objective, professional advice to decision-makers, they are entitled to an appropriate period of time and resource base to undertake the analysis required and to prepare reports. As a consequence, community engagement processes need to have defined and rigorously observed cut-off dates, after which date officers will not include ‘late’ input in their analysis. In such circumstances, the existence of ‘late’ input will be made known to decision-makers. In most cases where community input is involved, the Council is the decision-maker and this affords community members the opportunity to make input after the cut-off date via personal representations to individual Elected Members and via presentations to Committee and Council Meetings.


Page 82


Citizens need to check for any changes to decision making arrangements made

13. The City will take initial responsibility for making citizens aware of expected time-frames and decision making processes, including dates of Standing Committee and Council Meetings if relevant. However, as these details can change, it is the citizens responsibility to check for any changes by visiting the City’s website, checking the Fremantle News in the Fremantle Gazette or inquiring at the Customer Service Centre by phone, email or in-person.

Citizens are entitled to know how their input has been assessed

14. In reporting to decision-makers, City officers will in all cases produce a community engagement outcomes report that summarises comment and recommends whether it should be taken on board, with reasons.

Reasons for decisions must be transparent

15. Decision-makers must provide the reasons for their decisions.

Decisions posted on the City’s website 16. Decisions of the City need to be transparent and easily accessed. For reasons of cost, citizens making input on an issue will not be individually notified of the outcome, but can access the decision at the City’s website under ‘community engagement’ or at the City Library or Service and Information Centre.


Page 83

Issues that Council May Treat as Confidential Section 5.23 of the new Local Government Act 1995, Meetings generally open to the public, states: 1. Subject to subsection (2), the following are to be open to members of the public -

a) all council meetings; and b) all meetings of any committee to which a local government power or duty has

been delegated.

2. If a meeting is being held by a council or by a committee referred to in subsection (1) (b), the council or committee may close to members of the public the meeting, or part of the meeting, if the meeting or the part of the meeting deals with any of the following:

a) a matter affecting an employee or employees; b) the personal affairs of any person; c) a contract entered into, or which may be entered into, by the local government

and which relates to a matter to be discussed at the meeting; d) legal advice obtained, or which may be obtained, by the local government and

which relates to a matter to be discussed at the meeting; e) a matter that if disclosed, would reveal –

i) a trade secret; ii) information that has a commercial value to a person; or iii) information about the business, professional, commercial or financial

affairs of a person. Where the trade secret or information is held by, or is about, a person other than the local government.

f) a matter that if disclosed, could be reasonably expected to - i) impair the effectiveness of any lawful method or procedure for preventing,

detecting, investigating or dealing with any contravention or possible contravention of the law;

ii) endanger the security of the local government’s property; or iii) prejudice the maintenance or enforcement of a lawful measure for

protecting public safety.

g) information which is the subject of a direction given under section 23 (Ia) of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1971; and

h) such other matters as may be prescribed.

3. A decision to close a meeting or part of a meeting and the reason for the decision are to be recorded in the minutes of the meeting.

AGENDA - City of Fremantle PC Ag… · (ad et01/16) 62 pc1607-5 schedule of applications determined under delegated authority 79 pc1607-6 local planning policy lpp 2.14 - advertisement

Documents